REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
16 March 2026; 9 April 2026
DATE SIGNATURE
In th e matt er between :
LIBERTY FIGHTERS NETWORK
REYNO DAWID DE BEER NO
and
REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
COURT MANAGER OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 2025/061551
1st Applicant
2 nd Applicant
ist Respondent
2nd Respondent
In Re:
LIBERTY FIGHTERS NETWORK
REYNO DAWID DE BEER
and
2
Case No: 2022/30280
1st Applicant
2nd Applicant
SOUTH AFRICAN HEALTH PRODUCTS REGULATORY AUTHORITY Respondent
In Re:
LIBERTY FIGHTERS NETWORK
REYNO DE BEER
NICOLE CANDICE LAWRENCE
BROTHERSIT CC
and
SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK
MINISTGER OF FINANCE
NATIONAL TREASURY DEPARTMENT
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
Case No: 2022/030165
1st Applicant
2nd Applicant
3rd Applicant
4th Respondent
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
4th Respondent
5t h Respondent
3
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL: CLARIFIED
(The matter was heard in open court on 13 March 2026. Judgment was reserved
and uploaded onto the electronic file of the matter in Case lines and the date of
the judgment is deemed to be the date of uploading thereof onto Caserlines).
BEFORE: HOLLAND-MUTER J:
[1] A party aggrieved by a judgment granted in a high court may apply for leave
to appeal to the court in terms of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Court Act 10
of 2013 (the "Act").
[2] The provisions of section 17(1)(a) states that Leave to Appeal may only be
given where the Judge concerned is of the view that:
(a)(i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(b) (ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration .
[3] Having heard the representatives on behalf of all the parties involved and
perusing the application for leave to appeal, the court is of the view that there
is no reasonable prospect of success in another court and that there is no
compelling reason why the appeal should be heard by another court.
4
(4) The count has again considered all relevant issues regarding costs and
remains of the view that the granted cost order be retained. There is the court's
view no constitutional aspect involved and therefore no reason to consider the
Biowatch Principle and that there is no reason why costs should not follow
success. The court remains further of the view that the scale of the costs order
should remain on an attorney and client scale, the costs to include the costs of
two counsel where appointed.
HOLLAND-MUTER J
Judge of the Pretoria High Court
16 March 2026
The application for leave to appeal was heard on Friday 13 March 2026 and
judgment was uploaded onto Caselines on Monday 16 March 2026.
Appearances:
Applicants: Mr R De Beer (in person)
SARB: Adv E Kromhout
SAH PRA: Adv J Berger & Adv Y S Ntloko
POST SCRIPT: 9 April 2026: CLARIFICATION OF JUDGMENT:
5
(5] The judgment was forwarded to the court by registrar E van der Merwe at
the high court with the request to clarify par [3) of the judgment where it is
clearly stated that the court is of the view that there is no reasonable prospect
of success in another court. To clarify par [3] is to state that the following is
ordered:
ORDER:
The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs to be paid by the first
and second applicants on an attorney and client scale including the costs of
two counsel where appointed and employed.
Signed at Pretoria on 9 April 2026.
HOLLAND-MUTER J
Judge of the Pretoria High Court.
9 April 2026