---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

CASE NO: 013715/2022

(1)      REPORTABLE: NO

(2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3)      REVISED.

Date: 17/09//2024

ML TWALA

In the matter between:

 

TOPIGS NORSVIN SA PROPRIETARY

LIMITED                                                                                                         APPLICANT

 

And

 

ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LTD                                                     FIRST RESPONDENT

 

ANDRE MARINUS de RUYTER                                              SECOND RESPONDENT

 

CALIB CASSIM                                                                            THIRD RESPONDENT

 

MALEGAPURU WILLIAM MAKGOBA                                    FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

BANOTHILE CHARITY MAKHUBELA                                         FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

PULANE ELSIE MOLOKWANE                                                   SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

BUSISIWE MAVUSO                                                                 SEVETH RESPONDENT

 

RODERICK de BRASSIC CROMPTON                                       EIGHT RESPONDENT

 

TSHEPO HERBERT TONG-MONGALO                                      NINTH RESPONDENT

 

MLAWULI MAYOR MAJINGOLO                                              TENTH RESPONDENT

 

DEIDRE HERBST                                                               ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

BONGUMUSA MASHAZI                                                      TWELFTH RESPONDENT

 

LESIBA KGOBE                                                               THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

MINSTER OF WATER AND SANITATION                     FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF

WATER AND SANITATION                                                 FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

MINSTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES

AND THE ENVIRONMENT                                                SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

DIRECTOR-GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF

FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE

ENVIRONMENT                                                              SEVENTEEN RESPONDENT

 

MINISTER OF MINRAL RESOURCES

AND ENERGY                                                              EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT

 

NATIONAL ENERGY REGULATOR OF

SOUTH AFRICA                                                          NINETEENTH RESPONDENT

 

CLIVE RAYMOND LE ROUX                                        TWENTIETH RESPONDENT

 

PAUL MPHO MAKWANA                                       TWENTY- FIRST RESPONDENT

 

AUSTIN LESLIE MKHABELA                           TWENTY-SECOND RESPONDENT

 

BUSISIWE VILAKAZI                                           TWENTY-THIRD RESPONDENT

 

LWAZI LEON GOQWANA                                TWENTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

FATHIMA BEE BEE ABDUL GANY                       TWENTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

ANYANDA PEARL ZINHLE

MAFULEKA                                                             TWENTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

TSKANI LOTTEN MTHOMBENI                      TWENTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

BEKI ZACHARIA NTSHALINTSHALI                    TWENTY-EIGHT RESPONDENT

 

NTETO NYATHI                                                    TWENTY-NINETH RESPONDENT

 

TRYPHOSA RAMANO                                                   THIRTIETH RESPONDENT

 

CLAUSELLE von ECK                                            THIRTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

 

 

 JUDGMENT

 

 

TWALA J

 

[1]      On the 19 June 2024 this Court handed down the judgment in this case dismissing the applicant’s application with no order as to costs. Dissatisfied with the whole judgment and order, the applicant launched an application for leave to appeal. On the 28 August 2024, realising a patent error in its judgment of the 19 June 2024 and after inviting the parties to make any further submissions in relation thereto, the Court handed down its judgment in terms of Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court.

 

[2]      Further, it is noteworthy that the parties agreed that, for the sake of convenience and to avoid unnecessary delay in the hearing of this application, the matter be determined on the papers.

 

[3]      It is a trite principle of our law that leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.[1]

 

[4]      The grounds for the leave to appeal are succinctly stated in the notice of application for leave to appeal and I do not intend to repeat them in this judgment. Furthermore, I am grateful to counsel for the parties for the heads of argument and the submissions made therein.

 

[5]      I am satisfied that I have covered and considered all the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my judgment. I am therefore not persuaded by the applicant that there are reasonable prospects of success in this appeal. Put differently, it is my considered view that there is no prospect that another Court would come to a different conclusion in this case. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that the application for leave to appeal the judgment falls to be dismissed.

 

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

 

1.       The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

 

TWALA M L

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION

 

For the Applicant:	Advocate MM Oosthuizen SC
	Advocate N Fourie
Instructed by:	Bishop Fraser Attorney
	Tel: 010 035 4944
	davide@bishopfraser.co.za
For the Eskom Respondents:	Advocate P Lazarus SC
	Advocate B Dhladhla
(First to Tenth,                           Eleventh to Thirteenth and        Twentieth to Thirty-First respondents)
Instructed by:	Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc
	Tel: 011 269 7600
	hhugo@ensafrica.com
For the State Respondents:	Advocate A Liversage SC
(Fourteenth to Seventeenth       Respondents)	Advocate L Maite
Instructed by:	Office of the State Attorney, Pretoria
	Tel: 012 309 1500
	sakhosa@justice.gov.za
For the Nineteenth Respondent:	Advocate Mahlangu
Instructed by:	Mchunu Attorneys
	Tel: 011 778 4060
	titus@mchunu.co.za
Date of Hearing:	SUBMISSIONS ON PAPER
Date of Judgment:	17 September 2024

 

Delivered:    This judgment and order was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to Parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Case Lines. The date of the order is deemed to be the 17 September 2024.

---

---