REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

(1)	REPORTABLE: NO 
(2)	OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)	REVISED.
12/8/20

Case No: 71913/2018

In the matter between:

SOUTH AFRICAN ASSOCIATION 
FOR WATER USERS ASSOCIATIONS 				First Applicant
EAGLE'S NEST INVESTMENTS 3 CC 				Second Applicant
THUSANO EMPOWERMENT FARM (PTY) LTD 		Third Applicant

and

MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION 			First Respondent
DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF WATER		Second Respondent
AND SANITATION
SIFISO MKHIZE N.O. 						Third Respondent
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL: WATER SECTOR 		Fourth Respondent
REGULATION, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND 
SANITATION
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL: SPECIAL PROJECTS 	Fifth Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION

Case No: 42072/2018

In the matter between:

CASPER JACOBUS LOTTER N.O.					First Applicant
JACOBUS ANDREAS DU PLESSIS N.O.				Second Applicant
JOHANNES CORNELIUS HEUNIS N.O.				Third Applicant 
(THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE DOORNKRAAL
BESIGHEIDTRUST IT844/2003 (E))

and

THE MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION 			First Respondent
THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 			Second Respondent
DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND 		Third Respondent
SANITATION
BRITZKRAAL (PTY) LTD 							Fourth Respondent

Case No: 90498/2018

In the matter between:

FRANCOIS GERHARDUS JOHANNES WIID 				First Applicant
TORQHOFF BOERDERY (PTY) LTD 					Second Applicant
FRANCOIS GERHARDUS JOHANNES WIID N.O. 			Third Applicant
REINETTE JEPPE WIID N.O. 						Fourth Respondent 
CAREL JACOBUS VAN PLETZEN N.O. 				Fifth Applicant
(THE THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH APPLICANTS BEING
TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF DE KALK TRUST 
IT51/2008/K)

and

THE MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION			First Respondent
THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL 		Second Respondent
AFFAIRS
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF 			Third Respondent
WATER AND SANITATION 
GABRIEL PETRUS VILJOEN N.O. 					Fourth Respondent
ANTON ANDRE STRYDOM N.O. 					Fifth Respondent
ANTON STEPHANUS VILJOEN N.O. 					Sixth Respondent
(THE FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH RESPONDENTS 
ARE THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE 
GP VILJOEN TRUST IT3917/94)

Delivered. This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and will be released on SAFLII. The date and time for hand
I

 down is deemed to be 10h00 12tg August 2020.

JUDGMENT
RANCHOD J:
[1]	Pursuant to handing down judgment in the above matters dismissing their applications with costs after hearing the matters together, the applicants in all three matters have applied for leave to appeal the judgment and orders of this Court.
[2]	In view of the Covid-19 pandemic, it was determined that the applications will be determined on the papers unless there were cogent reasons for oral hearings to be held. The parties have made their submissions in writing.
[3]	The main reason the applicants seek leave to appeal, they submit, is that this Court erred in its conclusion on the correct interpretation of section 25 of the National Water Act No. 36 of 1998 (the Act) and therefore there are reasonable prospects that another court will come to a different conclusion, more so, as there are conflicting judgments on this issue. It therefore raises a substantial and important point of law. It is also of considerable importance not only to the parties but also to the public at large.
[4]	Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 provides as follows:

"Leave to appeal.- (1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that-
(a)	(i)	the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii)	there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;
(b)	The decision sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit of section 16(2)(a); and
(c)	Where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties."

[5]	It is common cause that the present matter does not fall within the ambit of section 16(2)(a) and will not dispose of all the issues in the case, as contemplated in sections 17(1)(b) and (c).
[6]	The question in the present application for leave to appeal is thus whether the Applicants have shown that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or there is some other compelling reason (including conflicting judgments) why the appeal should be heard. Since subsections (i) and (ii) of section 17(1)(a) are separated by 'or', it is clear that if either of these two grounds are shown, leave to appeal may be granted.
[7]	Although the respondents oppose the application on the basis that the appeal does not have reasonable prospects of success, they concede that the correct interpretation of s25 of the Act does raise a substantial and important point of law and it
[8]	Having considered the submissions of the parties this Court is of the view that there are compelling reasons why leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal should be granted in that the matter does raise a substantial and important point of law; it is of considerable importance not only to the parties but also to the public at large and the fact that there are conflicting decisions on the correct interpretation of s25 of the Act.
[9]	In the circumstances, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted with costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.

Judge N Ranchod
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria

I agree

Judge NM Mavundla
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria

I agree

Judge P Mothle
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria