---

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

 

Case Number:  2023-046691

(1) REPORTABLE:   NO.

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:   NO.

(3) REVISED.

DATE: 2024-05-17

SIGNATURE

In the matter between:

BEYOND FORENSICS (PTY) LTD                                                                Applicant

 

and

 

THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER, SOUTH

AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE                                                            First Respondent

 

THE DEPUTY NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SUPPORT

SERVICES OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE        Second Respondent

 

THE ACTING SECTION HEAD OF PROCUREMENT

MANAGEMENT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE    Third Respondent

 

THE BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH

AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE                                                         Fourth Respondent

 

THE BID ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH

AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE                                                            Fifth Respondent

 

ECM GROUP (PTY) LTD T/A ECM TECHNOLOGIES                    Sixth Respondent

 

ACINO FORENSICS (PTY) LTD                                                 Seventh Respondent

 

This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.  The date for handing down is deemed to be 17 May 2024. 

 

JUDGMENT:  APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

 

 

POTTERILL J

 

[1]        I read the arguments before Tolmay J, the judgment, the applicant’s leave to appeal and the written heads submitted pertaining to the application for leave.  I have also listened to argument.

 

[2]        In terms of s17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 leave to appeal may only be given where a Judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

 

[3]        There is no compelling reason why the appeal should be heard;  I find no important points of law that warrant a consideration by a higher court.

 

[4]        I am also unpersuaded that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.

 

[5]        The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel if so employed.  Costs pertaining to work done after 1 April 2024 are awarded on scale C.

 

 

S. POTTERILL

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

CASE NO:	2023/046691
HEARD ON:	16 May 2024
FOR THE APPLICANT:	ADV. S. GROBLER SC AND ADV. P. VOLMINK
INSTRUCTED BY:	Dirk Kotze Attorneys c/o Alant, Gell & Martin Inc.
FOR THE 1ST TO 5TH RESPONDENTS:	ADV. Z.Z. MATEBESE SC AND ADV. V. PILLAY
INSTRUCTED BY:	The State Attorney
FOR THE 6TH RESPONDENT:	ADV. C.M. RIP AND ADV. M. DU PLESSIS
INSTRUCTED BY:	Thompson Attorneys c/o Hack, Stupel & Ross Attorneys
FOR THE 7TH RESPONDENT:	ADV. R. MOULTRIE SC AND ADV. M.Z. GWALA
INSTRUCTED BY:	Webber Wentzel
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 May 2024

---