---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NUMBER: 54451/16

DATE:  10 May 2017

AFRIFORUM                                                                                                   First Applicant

SOLIDARITY                                                                                              Second Applicant

                                                                            V

CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF PRETORIA                                                                                            First Respondent

CHAIRPERSON OF THE SENATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF PRETORIA                                                                                      Second Respondent

THEUNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA                                                             Third Respondent

THE MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING                  Fourth Respondent

JUDGMENT

MABUSE J: (Kollapen J and Baqwa J concurring)

[1] The above matter returned to us, this time, as an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and the order that we granted against the applicants on 15 December 2016.  On the said date we unanimously dismissed the applicants' application and in addition ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally, the one paying and the other to be absolved.  Such order included the costs in respect of the employment of two counsel.

[2] For the  purposes  of convenience,  we  will cite  the parties  as  they  were  cited in the main application.

[3] The applicants are obviously disgruntled with the judgment and the order that we granted on 15 December 2016.  For this reason they wish to challenge such judgment and order. They have set out in their application for leave to appeal all the grounds on the basis of which  they have planned to do so.  As their application for leave to appeal constitutes part of the  papers before us, we do not deem it  necessary  to reproduce  such grounds in this judgment.   It is important, though, to point out that, as with the main application, this application for leave to appeal was opposed by the first and second respondents.

[4] After we had heard arguments, it  was agreed  between the parties, on a proposition by the Court, that we should await the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal ("the   SCA") In the matter  of University  of the  Free  State  v Afriforum  and Solidarity  case  number  1027/16, a matter which dealt with the same subject as the main application of the current application.   It was agreed furthermore that once the SCA had made a pronouncement on the matter before it, it would not be necessary for this Court to recall counsel to be heard again in the wake of the UFS v Afriforum matter. The SCA has made pronouncements in the Afriforum matter and we are therefore at a stage where we can make a decision regarding this application.

[5] The test in the applications of this nature has been set out in s 17 of the Supreme    Court Act No. 10 of 2013 ("the Act").   That test is fil'$tly whether or not the applicant has a   reasonable prospect  of success if the application for leave to appeal is granted  and secondly, whether there are any compelling reasons to hear the appeal.   The duty is on the applicant to   satisfy the Court on either of these two requirements.

[6] Having read counsels' heads of argument and having listened to their argument we have   not been persuaded that the applicants have satisfied the requirements set out in s 17 of the Act.

Accordingly the application for leave to appeal is hereby refused with costs which costs shall include the costs of two counsel.

___________________________

P. M. MABUSE

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

I agree

___________________________

N. KOLLAPEN

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

I agree

 ___________________________

S. A. M. BAQWA

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Appearances:

Counsel for the applicant:                               Adv. JI du Toil (SC)

                                                                              Adv. MJ Engelbrecht

Instructed by:                                                   Kriek Wassenaar & Venter Inc.

Counsel for the first to third respondents:        Adv. G Marcus (SC)

                                                                                Adv. M Stubbs

Instructed by:                                                   Anton Bakker Inc.

Attorney for the fifth respondent:                     The State Attorney

Date Heard:                                                     10 March 2011

Date of Judgment:                                           May2011

---