IN THE IDGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ,
MPUMALANGA DIVISION , MIDDELBURG (LOCAL SEAT)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
DATE
In the application between:
SIGNATURE
TAHUTI TRADING 59 (PTY) LTD
And
THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH
AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE
WILLEM JACOBUS VENTER
In re:
CASE NUMBER: 2026-053518
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
2
THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN APPLICANT
REVENUE SERVICE
and
JC POWER TRADING CC FIRST RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2011/069346/23)
ABM COLLEGE SA (PTY) LTD SECOND RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2013/016656/017)
NGWATO ENGINEERING AND THIRD RESPONDENT
MAINTENANCE (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2016/144615/07)
ANDERSONBROWN CC FOURTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2011/056965/23)
ASGARD TRADING CC FIFTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2011/051706/23)
BRAVOPLEX 115 CC (IN LIQUIDATION) SIXTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2010/109796/23)
FIREBREAK SAFETY APPLIANCES (PTY) SEVENTH RESPONDENT
LTD
(Registration Number: 2015/119944/07)
LIFHO CONSTRUCTION CC EIGHTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2008/209086/23)
MANGLO INDUSTRIAL AND MINING NINTH RESPONDENT
SUPPLIER (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2014/054906/07)
3
CENTRAL SOURCING GROUP (PTY) LTD TENTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2015/098396/07)
TRIEAGLE ENERGY (PTY) LTD ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2016/314068/07)
ESOX MANUFACTURING FACTORY TWELFTH RESPONDENT
(PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2018/111648/07)
ADVANCED PLANT INDUSTRIALISTS THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT
(PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2018/566965/07)
TAHUTI TRADING 59 (PTY) LTD FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2013/094084/07)
ZZYZX TRADING AND PROJECTS FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT
(PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2013/036013/07)
ALJ TECH (PTY) LTD SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2019/003046/07)
DOUBLE IMPACT PROJECTS (PTY) SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT
LTD
(Registration Number: 2016/178187/07)
IZIMVELO MINING LABOUR AND EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT
PLANT HIRE CC
(Registration Number: 008/256614/23)
4
KEEWAVE TRADING 334 (PTY) LTD NINETEENTH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2018/515531/07)
AMIBASE (PTY) LTD TWENTIETH RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2016/047545/07)
DIBUSEENG BUSINESS TWENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT
ENTERPRISE (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2014/067732/07)
MPHEGOLLE TRADING TWENTY-SECOND RESPONDENT
ENTERPRISE (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2015/343501/07)
_________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________________________
FOURIE AJ
INTRODUCTION:
[1] The current application is an application for leave to appeal in terms of
Rule 49(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court as read together with Section
17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013.
[2] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal against the whole of the Judgment and
the Order of this Court, dated 2 June 2026. Although the Applicants do not
state to which Court they want the matter to be referred for such appeal, it
5
is accepted that leave is sought to the full Court of this Division;
alternatively, if the Court so finds, to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[3] The application for leave to appeal is opposed.
[4] The Applicant has not, as is generally the norm, set out specific and
numbered grounds of appeal, and an evaluation of the Application for
Leave to Appeal seems to state rather in general terms the reasons why the
Applicant is dissatisfied with the Order that was initially granted. Although
certain paragraphs might resemble grounds of appeal, certain other
paragraphs seem merely to expand upon the grounds of appeal, and it needs
to be stated that the Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal as drawn by
the Applicant seems to have been drawn as much with the grounds of
appeal as with argument on why the grounds of appeal ought to succeed.
[5] As such, I do not intend to repeat the nearly 17 pages of argument as
presented by the Applicant. Something is, however , to be said in the
manner in which the Applicant has presented its notice for leave to appeal.
An application for leave to appeal ought rather to identify crisply the issues
on which an Applicant wishes to rely, which issues can in Heads of
Argument and ultimate argument to Court be expanded upon. Applications
for leave to appeal are not designed for a rehearing of a matter and are
generally for crisp issues canvassed before the Court a quo , which is
already aware of all the underlying facts and issues between the respective
parties, and are not designed for a re-trial or to raise arguments and issues
that were not previously before the Court.
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
6
[6] In the matter of Janson1 the Court held as follows, which is restated for
purposes of convenience and legal clarity, as:
‘[10] The formulation for the test to be applied in applications for leave to appeal has
been accepted and applied by our Courts in multiple judgments.2
[11] In the matter of JACOBS3 the full Court held as at paragraph 29 thereof , that it
seems that Section 17(1) of the Act, construed as a whole, is a qualification of the
principles laid down in Sweni v Minister of Law and Order of the Republic of
South Africa 4 assessed in the context of subsequent gloss afforded in decisions
such as S v Western Areas Ltd 5 and Philan -Ma-Afrika v Mailulu 6. In these
decisions it was held that what is of paramount importance in deciding whether a
judgment is appealable is the interest of justice.
[12] In the matter of Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 7 the Court
stated that:
“If the Court is unpersuaded of the prospects of success, it must still enquire
whether there is a compelling reason to entertain the appeal. A compelling
reason includes any important question of law or a discreet issue of public
importance that will have an effect on future disputes. But here too, the merits
remain vitally important and are often decisive.”
1 Janson v Ebundu – Leave to Appeal (5767/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 122 (29 September 2025).
2 Four Wheel Drive Assessory Distributors CC v Rethan N.O. 2019 (3) SA 451 (SCA) at para 34; Pretoria Society
of Advocates & Others v Nthai 2020 (1) 267 (LP) at para 5; Vrystaat Munisipale Pensioen Fonds v The Pension
Funds Adjudicator 2019 JDR 0211 (FB) at para 4; Visagie N.O. v MTN Group Limited 2013 JDR 2853 (GSJ) at
para 3.
3 Jacobs v Beacon Island Shareblock unreported (WCC Case Number A258/2018 dated 6 February 2019 .
4 Sweni v Minister of Law & Order of the Republic of South Africa 1993 (1) SA523 (A) .
5 S v Western Area Ltd 2005 (5) SA 214 (SAC).
6 Philan-Ma-Afrika v Mailulu 2010 (2) SA 573 (SCA).
6 Philan-Ma-Afrika v Mailulu 2010 (2) SA 573 (SCA).
7 Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) at paragraph 2 .
7
[13] Post the amendment of the Act and the case law flowing thereafter, and for
purposes of the current Judgment, it is deserving to merely restate that the position
has significantly changed and it ought to be accepted that a general prospect of
success or the belief that some or other Court might for some or other reason find
differently than the Court a quo is not satisfactory for Leave to Appeal to be
granted. Courts are unfortunately flooded with matters, and to unnecessarily
proceed with matters with a view that a litigant might on a different day encounter
a different Judge that might feel different and hold a different view on the case of
a litigant is quite simply not enough. Leave to Appeal proceedings exist to weed
out patent errors that occur when Judgments are handed down and to ensure that
justice is ultimately done. Leave to Appeal ought not to be regarded as merely
for the taking, especially where the matter might at first glance seem to be of a
technical nature.
[14] It unfortunately occurs ever so often that litigants try to persuade the Court, when
an Application for Leave to Appeal is heard, that the technical nature of a matter
is deserving of a re-evaluation of the matter by a different Court, seemingly in an
attempt to have the Judge who dealt with the matter initially doubt his Order, and
in the hopes of phrasing their argument before a different Judge or Judges
differently to find ultimate favour with them or simply to delay the inevitable
finalisation of the matter.
[15] This Court is of the belief that Leave to Appeal ought to be reserved for when the
Court is, with a degree of certainty, convinced that a different Court will come to
a different conclusion in respect of the legal questions that have been posed by a
litigant. Although I accept the bar ought not to be set unreasonably high, an order
of this nature is not simply designed to cater for speculation.
EVALUATION OF GROUNDS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL:
8
[7] The essence of the Applicant’s grounds for leave to appeal can be p ooled
together under the following headings:
[7.1] The findings made in respect of the jurisdictional requirements of
Section 163 of the Tax Administration Act, 28 of 2011.
[7.2] A challenge to the disregard of the Applicant’s privacy.
[7.3] The manner in which the Tax liability was calculated.
[7.4] The finding of the Court that realisable assets may be disposed of
or removed.
[7.5] The Court ought to have ordered a less intrusive order against the
Applicants.
[7.6] The allegations that the Applicants ought never have been joined
in the proceedings and have been mis-joined.
[7.7] A challenge to the ultimate cost order made against the Applicants.
[8] It was addressed by the Respondent as well as the Court with the Applicant
that most, if not all, of the challenges raised by the Applicant in the current
application for leave to appeal are new matters that were not previously
before the Court and constitute an argument that has been formulated after
the initial hearing and Judgment received.
9
[9] The ultimate heads of argument filed by the Applicant comprised another
some 55 pages, most of which largely comprised the previous arguments
raised by the Applicant and the so-called new arguments now raised in the
application for leave to appeal. The Applicant argues that it is entitled to
raise new issues in an application for leave to appeal where those issues
relate to points of law.
[10] The argument of the Applicant is seemingly premised on the matter of
Minister of Justice Constitutional Development and Others v South African
Litigation Centre and Others8 in which the Court said the following:
‘But there is another consideration. It is that if a point of law emerges from the
undisputed facts before the Court, it is undesirable that the case be determined
without considering that point of law. The reason is that it may lead to the case
being decided on the basis of a legal error on the part of one of the parties in
failing to identify and raise the point at an appropriate earlier stage. But the Court
must be satisfied that the point truly emerges on the papers, that the facts relevant
to the leg al point have been fully canvassed and that no prejudice will be
occasioned to the other parties by permitting the point to be raised and argued.’
[11] The rationale for the aforesaid is obviously because of the test to be applied
in applications for leave to appeal. The test is whether a different Court,
confronted with the same matter the Court a quo was, would, under the
applicable principles, come to a different conclusion. Accordingly, a Court
of second instance and a Court of first instance can never come to the same
conclusion if they are asked to decide a different legal conundrum.
8 Minister of Justice Constitutional Development and Others v South African Litigation Centre and Others (867/15)
[2016] ZASCA 17; 2016 (4) BCLR 484 (SCA); [2016] 2 All SA 365 (SCA) .
10
[12] Where the application deals with issues previously before the Court, this
Court remains unpersuaded by the Applicant's argument . The manner in
which the Applicant phrases their argument disregards both the applicable
legal principles to matters such as the one at hand and the rationale for the
application and implication of such an order.
[13] There are no reasonable prospects that a different Court would come to a
different conclusion from the one this Court has come to.
[14] In evaluating whether there is some other compelling reason why the appeal
should be heard, the Court evaluates, amongst others, the new arguments
as raised by the Applicant.
[15] The Court has considered the argument of the Applicant, and the Court is
similarly not persuaded that the argument was properly canvassed in the
papers and that there would be no prejudice occasioned to permit the points
to be raised and argued. The issues raised are neither novel nor do they
require interpretation by another Court to lead the Court to believe that it
would be in the interest of justice if leave to appeal on these grounds be
granted.
[16] The Applicant in argument seems to suggest that applications under Section
163 of the Tax Administration Act deal with high degrees of certainty on
the jurisdiction requirements. The Applicant's proposition is simply not
correct. Preservation orders expressly preserve a specific position pending
the finalisation of investigations and ultimate resolution of issues between
the parties. The existence of some doubt may indeed exist, but if the
reasonable apprehension is justified and satisfied, the jurisdictional
requirements would be met.
[ 1 7] The Court evaluated again the full submissions made by the parties and all
the papers filed and, applying the relevant legal principles specifically as
enunciated in SARS v Tradex (Pty) Ltd 9 the Court remains unpersuaded on
any of the grounds as raised by the Applicant that leave to appeal is
warranted.
ORDER:
[18] Under these circumstances and for all the reasons I have stated, the
following Order is made:
[18.1]
[18.2]
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The Applicant shall pay the Respondent's costs, including the
costs of two Counsel, where so employed, on a party-and-party
Scale B in respect of the more senior of the Counsel and Scale A
in respect of the more junior of the two Counsel.
HFFOURIEAJ
ACTING JUDGE OF HIGH COURT, l\flDDELBURG
9 SARS v TRADEX (Pty) Ltd and Others 2015 (3) SA 596 (y,/CC).
11
12
Counsel for the Applicant: Adv Fourie
Instructed by: Mfundo Sibiya Attorneys
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv Meyer together with Adv Storm
Instructed by: GMI Incorporated
Judgment reserved on: 7 September 2026
Date of delivery: 18 September 2026