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 ......09 OCTOBER 2023......... SIGNATURE DATE
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