THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NUMBER: 95187 / 2015
DATE OF HEARING: 6 FEBRUARY 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 3 APRIL 2017

In the matter between:

BELA BELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	First Applicant

BALIMI BARUI TRADING (PTY) LTD	Second Applicant

and

DIKALA PLANT HIRE CC	Respondent

JUDGMENT

AWAKOUMIDES. AJ

[1] This is an application by both applicants for leave to appeal against my judgment dated 9 November 2016, more particularly the orders at paragraphs 20.1 to 20.5 thereof.

[2] I have considered the arguments by counsel for the applicants and the respondent. Having done so, I am of the opinion that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

[3] Insofar as the submission made by the second respondent at paragraph 3 of its application for leave to appeal is concerned, such submission does not set out any ground for appeal and, in my view, was inappropriately made.

[4] Whether there is justification for the employment of senior counsel is not an issue for me to decide at this stage. Counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent parties are aware of the decision on this point in The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v The Chairman of the Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Johannesburg and Connaught Properties (Pty) Ltd 2014 ZASCA 5 (12 March 2014) wherein Leach JA stated that " .....matter is deserving of the employment of senor counsel (which it is clearly is) it would be wrong for a court to somehow attempt to fetter that discretion" , meaning the taxing master's discretion. I consider myself bound to this decision despite being of the view that the matter was complex enough to employ the services of senior counsel.

[5] Consequently the following order is made:

[5.1] Leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, is granted.

[5.2]	Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.

________________________
G. T. AWAKOUMIDES
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
DATE: 3 APRIL 2017

Representation for Respondent:

Counsel:			S. G. Wagener S. C.
Instructed by:		Geyser Van Rooyen Attorneys

Representation for First Applicant:

Counsel:			M. M. Rip SC
Instructed by:		Moloto Attorneys

Representation for Second Applicant:

Counsel:			M. G. D. Maritz SC

Instructed by:		Van Heerden and Krugel Attorneys