---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 68285/13

DATE: 12 SEPTEMBER 2014

NOT REPORTABLE

NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES

In the matter between:

WATERS FIREARM TRAINING..................................................................................FIRST APPLICANT

AND ASSESSMENT CENTRE CC t/a FIREARM

COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT AND TRAINING CENTRE

NTATE AVIATION AND SECURITY TRAINING CC.........................................SECOND APPLICANT

YE-SIZWE SECURITY SERVICES CC......................................................................THIRD APPLICANT

UNLIMITED BUSINESS UPLIFTMENT

TRADING UNITS (PTY) LIMITED.........................................................................FOURTH APPLICANT

and

THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE........................................................FIRST RESPONDENT

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER:

VISIBLE POLICING OF THE

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES.............................................................SECOND RESPONDENT

THE SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING AUTHORITY

(“SASSETA”)...............................................................................................................THIRD RESPONDENT

THE QUALITY COUNCIL....................................................................................FOURTH RESPONDENT

FOR TRADE AND OCCUPATIONS (“QCTO”)

SOUTH AFRICAN PROFESSIONAL

FIREARMS TRAINERS COUNCIL (“SAPFTC”)...................................................FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

BASSON, J

Introduction

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division against a judgment of this Court dated 20 June 2014 in terms of which this Court dismissed the application that served before it with costs inclusive of reserved costs. The application for leave to appeal was opposed by the fourth and fifth respondents.

[2] The grounds for leave to appeal are set out in the application for leave to appeal. I do not intend for purposes of this brief judgment repeating the grounds for leave to appeal. I also do not intend to repeat the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants as those submissions were in essence the same as those submitted before me at the hearing of the application.

[3] It is trite that a Court will grant leave to appeal in circumstances where there are reasonable prospects of success¹. I have again considered the arguments presented to this Court in the application for leave to appeal. I have also considered my judgment and I am not persuaded that the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

[4] In the event I make the following order.

4.1 The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

AC BASSON

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

12 September 2014

---