REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/ NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/ NO
(3) REVISED:YES/ NO -
DATE: 08 June 2026 Signature ..
In the matter:
RAND MUTUAL ASSURANCE (PTY) LTD
AND
SOPHIA BENT
CASE NO: A120/2025
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
This Judgment is deemed to have been handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties' representatives via email and uploaded onto the
caselines system on 08 June 2026 at 11h00.
Judgment - leave to Appeal
Thupaatlase AJ (Lenyai J concurring)
1
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court dated
09 December 2025 . The said judgment against which leave to appeal is sought is
detailed enough and the court do not intend to rehash its reasoning and its findings.
[2] In the judgment the court upheld the appeal by the respondent against the decision
of Tribunal wherein it upheld the decision of Rand Mutual Assurance (applicant) to
reject the claim submitted in terms of Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
Diseases Act 130 of 1993 (COIDA). The court set aside the decision of the Tribunal
dated 03 April 2025 and held that the respondent was entitled to compensation as
envisaged in section 22(1) in terms of COIDA.
[3] The court further remitted the matter to applicant herein for a calculation and
determination of the amount for compensation payable to the respondent herein as a
result of the incident. The applicant was ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client
scale.
The Legal Frame work
[4] Section 17(1) (a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 provides that leave may
only be granted where the judge is of the opinion that:
4.1 The appeal would have reasonable prospects of success; or
4.2. There is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.
[5] It is trite that the threshold for granting leave to appeal has been raised under the
current dispensation . In the case of MEG for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha 2016 (6)
SA (SCA) 1 at para 17 held that:
'An application for leave must convince the court on proper grounds that there is a
reasonable prospect or realistic chance of success on appeal. A mere possibility of
success. an arguable case or one that is not hopeless is not enough. There must be a
sound rational basis to conclude that there is reasonable prospect of success on
I
appeal.'
2
[6) It is clear that the word 'would' in section 17 (1 )(a) indicates a measure of certainty
that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed
against, not merely that it might do so.
[7] There is a clear recognition of the heightened threshold in cases where leave to
appeal is sought. In the case of Dexgroup (pty) Ltd v Trusco Group Intl (Pty) Ltd 2013
(6) SA 520 (SCA) at para 24 court reiterated that:
'The need to obtain leave to appeal is a valuable tool in ensuring that scarce judicial
resources are not spent on appeals that lack merit. It should in this case be deployed
by refusing leave to appeal.'
Grounds of Appeal
(8] As stated at the beginning of this judgment , the court dealt comprehensively with
the authorities dealing directly with the matter before it. In its oral argument before the
court, counsel for applicant emphasised that the case has potential for massive
precedence value. It is the conclusion of this court that such a consideration cannot
be used as a measure to grant leave to appeal. A further point raised by Counsel for
the applicant was that Rand Mutual needs guidance on similar future matters. I am of
the view that this is not a point that can justify granting leave to appeal.
[9] It is clear from the grounds of appeal and oral arguments before the court that what
the applicant actually appears to want is an opportunity to re-argue the matter before
the appeal court. The court was not pointed to any misdirection in its judgment .
[1 0] In respect of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant, the judgment dealt
with the facts and the law as presented by the parties. It is clear from the judgment
how the Court arrived at each conclusion on the contentious issues raised by each
party. When the facts and the law are examined, there is in my view no sound and
rational basis for the conclusion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of
success.
success.
[11] Given the factual findings made in the judgment the court is not persuaded that
another court 'would ' reach a different conclusion . In the circumstances , the applicant
has failed to meet the threshold of section 17(1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts
Act 1 0 of 2013.
[12] The following order is made:
3
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs and Counsel's fees on a party
and party on Scale C.
I concur and it is so ordered.
Heard on: 01 April 2026
Judgment delivered on 08 June 2026
Appearances:
T THUPATLAASE AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
MMD LENYAI J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
For the Applicant: Adv. M Meyerowitz
Instructed by: Precious Nobuhle Mudau Inc. (PNM Incorporated)
For the Respondent: Adv. J Du Plessis
Instructed by: Briel Incorporated
4