---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

 

088430-2024

Heard on: 12 September 2024

Judgment: 16 September 2024

(1)      REPORTABLE: NO

(2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3)      REVISED.

DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 2024

SIGNATURE

 

In the matter between:

 

FORENSIC INVESTIGATION RISK AND RECOVERY                           Applicant

MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD

 

And

 

THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND                             First Respondent

 

24SIX CA                                                                               Second Respondent

 

ALTITUDE BUSINESS ADVISORY                                           Third Respondent

 

CHAPU CA                                                                               Fourth Respondent

 

DITHETO ACCOUNTANTS                                                         Fifth Respondent

 

EZEE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS                                      Sixth Respondent

 

IZALA VERIFICATORS                                                        Seventh Respondent

 

IZALA VERIFICATORS CPT                                                    Eighth Respondent

 

KST HOLDING                                                                           Ninth Respondent

 

KULUNGWANA ACCOUNTANTS                                             Tenth Respondent

 

LEBONE LA AFRICA CONSULTANTS                               Eleventh Respondent

 

LEOLO AND PARTNERS CHARTERED

ACCOUNTANTS                                                                    Twelfth Respondent

 

MAINE MANAGEMENT AND CHARTERED

ACCOUNTANTS                                                               Thirteenth Respondent

 

MKWANAZI INVESTMENTS                                          Fourteenth Respondent

 

MNB CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS                                Fifteenth Respondent

 

MOROBI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS                         Sixteenth Respondent

 

NAMBE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS                         Seventeenth Respondent

 

NDEMEX CONSULTING                                                Eighteenth Respondent

 

NKS CASA                                                                     Nineteenth Respondent

 

OMC CONSULTING                                                         Twentieth Respondent

 

RSND CONSULTING PROFESSIONALS                    Twenty-First Respondent

 

SAMBA SOLUTIONS                                             Twenty-Second Respondent

 

SIMDAR CONSULTING                                             Twenty-Third Respondent

 

SONDLO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS               Twenty-Fourth Respondent

 

SVZ CONSULTING                                                    Twenty-Fifth Respondent

 

THABI CONSULTING                                               Twenty-Sixth Respondent

 

THE ACCOUNTING VILLAGE                             Twenty-Seventh Respondent

UBUNTU BUSINESS ADVISORY AND

CONSULTING

(Listed as UBAC FORENSICS on CIPC)                Twenty-Eighth Respondent

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR                          Twenty-Ninth Respondent

 

This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed 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 is deemed to be 16 September 2024.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRIJDOM J

[1]      In this matter the first and twenty-third respondent seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, alternatively to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division, against the whole of my judgment and costs order handed down on 20 August 2024 in the Urgent Court.

 

[2]      The application for leave to appeal is opposed by the applicant in the main application.

 

[3]      The grounds of appeal in respect of the first and twenty-third respondents are set out in the respective applications for leave to appeal. I do not intend to repeat same.[1]

 

[4]      Applications for leave to appeal are governed by sections 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 (the Act). Section 17 makes provision for leave to be granted where the presiding judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or if there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.

 

[5]      With the enactment of section 17 of the Act, the test has now obtained statutory force and is to be applied using the word “would” in deciding whether to grant leave. In other words, the test is: “Would another Court come to a different decision.”

 

[6]      Each application for leave to appeal must be decided on its own facts. Some examples of what will be regarded as compelling reasons have been identified. They include:

 

(a)      The substantial importance of the case to the applicant or to both the applicant and respondent;

 

(b)      The decision sought to be appealed against involves an important question of law;

 

(c)      The administration of justice either generally or if the particular case concerned requires the appeal to be heard; and

 

(d)      An issue of public importance which will have an effect on future matters.

 

[7]      It is trite that appellants need to convince the Court on proper grounds that they have prospects of success on appeal. Those prospects of success must not be remote, but there must exist a reasonable chance of succeeding.

 

[8]      Having considered all the grounds of appeal raised by the first and twenty-third respondents as well as the facts and the law as presented by the parties, I am of the view that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.

 

[9]      When the facts and the law were examined, there is in my view also a sound and rational basis for the conclusion that there are compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard. This matter is of substantial importance to both the applicant and the respondents and would raise important constitutional issues and questions of law.

 

[10]    In the result, the following order is made:

1.       Leave to appeal is granted to the first and twenty-third respondents to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

 

          2.       Costs will be costs in the appeal.

 

 

STRIJDOM J.J

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION,

PRETORIA

 

 

Appearances:

For the Applicant in the main application:	Adv A Granova
Instructed by:	V Chetty Inc
For the First Respondent:	Adv E Van As
Instructed by:	The State Attorney
For the Twenty-Third Respondent:	Mr N.P Voyi
Instructed by:	Voyi Inc Attorneys

---