---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

 

Case No. 2023/132695

(1)    REPORTABLE:  YES/NO

(2)    OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO

(3)    REVISED

DATE: 2 AUGUST 2024

SIGNATURE:

In the matter between:
THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR OF SOUTH AFRICA	FIRST APPLICANT
ADVOCATES FOR TRANSFORMATION	SECOND APPLICANT
And
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE	FIRST RESPONDENT
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES	SECOND RESPONDENT
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL	THIRD RESPONDENT
Coram:           Millar J    Heard on:       30 July 2024     Delivered:   2 August 2024 - This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 09H00 on 2 August  2024.

 

JUDGMENT

 

MILLAR J

 

 

[1]                 This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment and order handed down on 28 June 2024.

 

[2]                 For convenience I will refer to the parties as they were in the main application save to note that it is the respondents who seek leave to appeal and the applicants who oppose its grant.

 

[3]                 The test for granting leave to appeal The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act[1] as follows:

 

“(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”

 

[4]                 I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought and the reasons given by me in the judgment for the order granted.  I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the respondents and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the applicants. 

 

[5]                 I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.

 

[6]                 The costs will follow the result.

 

[7]                 In the circumstances, I make the following order:

 

[6.1]         The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs which costs are to include the costs consequent upon the engagement of 3 counsel where so engaged.

 

 

 

A MILLAR

 JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

 

HEARD ON:                                                   30 JULY 2024

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:                         2 AUGUST 2024

 

APPEARANCES

COUNSEL FOR THE  FIRST & SECOND APPLICANTS:	ADV. P LOUW SC
	ADV. N LUTHULI
	ADV. M SALUKAZANA
INSTRUCTED BY:	EDWARD NATHAN SONNENBERGS INC.
REFERENCE:	MR. A MOOSAJEE
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS:	ADV. N CASSIM SC
	ADV. L NKOSI-THOMAS SC
	ADV. N NTULI
INSTRUCTED BY:	STATE ATTORNEY, PRETORIA
REFERENCE:	MR. I CHOWE
	NO APPEARANCE FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

---