IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

Case No: 38343/2022
(1)	REPORTABLE: NO
(2)	OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO
(3)	REVISED
SIGNATURE
DATE: 09 OCTOBER 2023

In the matter between:

DON’T WASTE SHARED SERVICES (PTY) LTD 		      FIRST APPLICANT 

DON’T WASTE KZN 1 (PTY) LTD 				 SECOND APPLICANT 

DON’T WASTE KZN 2 (PTY) LTD 				      THIRD APPLICANT
 
DON’T WASTE CTN 1 (PTY) LTD 				  FOURTH APPLICANT 

DON’T WASTE CTN 2 (PTY) LTD 				      FIFTH APPLICANT

DON’T WASTE EC1 (PTY) LTD 					      SIXTH APPLICANT 

DON’T WASTE GAU 1 (PTY) LTD       				SEVENTH APPLICANT 

DON’T WASTE GAU 2 (PTY) LTD 				   EIGHTH APPLICANT
 
DON’T WASTE GAU 3 (PTY) LTD 				      NINTH APPLICANT 

DON’T WASTE GAU 4 (PTY) LTD 				     TENTH APPLICANT 

DON’T WASTE GAU 5 (PTY) LTD 			        ELEVENTH APPLICANT
 
DON’T WASTE GAU 6 (PTY) LTD 				TWELFTH APPLICANT 

And 

THE COMPENSATION FUND 					FIRST RESPONDENT 

THE COMISSIONER OF THE COMPENSATION FUND    SECOND RESPONDENT 

MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND				 THIRD RESPONDENT
LABOUR: TW MXESI	 

DEPUTY MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND 		       FOURTH RESPONDENT 
LABOUR: BOITUMELO MOLOI 

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF 		FIFTH RESPONDENT
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR: THOBILE LAMATI 

JUDGMENT

RETIEF J

1.	The Second to Twelfth Applicants [Applicants] appeal against those parts of the   judgment which, this Court handed down (ex tempore) on the 21 July 2023, in respect of Part B of the relief sought by the Applicants and costs. The application was argued on the 20 July 2023.

2.	The issue for determination was a judicial review brought by way of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 [PAJA] in which the Applicants sought to review and set aside the classification decisions of the First and Second Respondents [Respondents] made in terms of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Disease Act 130 of 1993 [COIDA]..

3.	The nub of the grounds of appeal relied on traverse the interpretation and application, if any, of section 91 of COIDA. The Appellants contend, inter alia, that section 91 is not applicable to the Applicants and that reliance and the application thereof, vis n vis as an internal remedy mechanism referred to in PAJA is misplaced. 

4.	That the provisions of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 [Superior Courts Act] are satisfied in that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. The Applicants further rely and, set out reasons in terms of section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Court Act to amplify their section 17 submissions. These reasons appear compelling.

5.	Having heard Counsel for both the Applicants and the Respondent I am of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success and as such, the following order is made:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.	The Second to Twelfth Applicants are granted leave to appeal to the Full Bench of this Division.
2.	The Respondents are ordered to pay the costs, which costs to be inclusive of two Counsel.

L.A. RETIEF
Judge of the High Court 
Gauteng Division 
Appearances

Counsel for the Appellants:		Adv. H Gerber SC
		Adv. M Coetzee
Instructed by:		Cox Yeats Attorneys
		c/o Alant, Gell & Martin Inc

Counsel for the Respondents:	Adv. MC Phathela 
Instructed by:			The State Attorney, Pretoria

Leave to Appeal heard on the:     28 September 2023

Leave granted on the: 		9 October 2023