MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Kwa-Zulu Natal Province and Another v South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority and Others (38719/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1270 (21 November 2023)

Jurisdiction
South Africa · Gauteng
Citation
MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Kwa-Zulu Natal Province and Another v South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority and Others (38719/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1270 (21 November 2023)
Media Neutral Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1270
Hearing date
20 November 2023
Court
High Court of South Africa North Gauteng, Pretoria
Case number
38719/2022
Judges
Millar J
Judgment date
21 November 2023
Language
English
Type
Judgment
Download
Download DOCX (84.8 KB)
Original PDF
Download PDF (416.8 KB)

 

4

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE

(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO

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

(3) REVISED: NO

DATE: 21 November 2023 SIGNATURE: ________________________

Case No. 38719/2022

In the matter between:

 

 

MEC FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCE

First Applicant

 

THE PREMIER OF KWA-ZULU NATAL PROVINCE

Second Applicant

 

and

 

 

THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK

PRUDENTIAL AUTHORITY

First Respondent

 

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

Second Respondent

 

ITHALA SOC LIMITED

Third Respondent

 

ITHALA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED (REG. NO. 2001/007427/30)

Fourth Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

Coram:

Millar J

 

Heard on:

20 November 2023

 

 

Delivered:

21 November 2023 - 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 21 November 2023

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

MILLAR J

 

 

 

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment and order handed down on 29 September 2023.

 

[2] I have carefully considered the order granted by me and the reasons set out in the judgment together with the arguments presented at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal and in the heads of argument filed by all the parties.

 

 

[3] I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there are any other compelling reasons why leave to appeal ought to be granted.

 

 

[4] In the circumstances it is ordered:

 

 

[4.1] The application for leave to appeal is refused.

 

[4.2] The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents on the scale as between party and party, such costs to include the cost consequent upon the employment of two counsel where more than one counsel was engaged.

 

 

_____________________________

A MILLAR

 

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

 

HEARD ON:

20 NOVEMBER 2023

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:

21 NOVEMBER 2023

 

 

FOR THE APPLICANTS:

ADV. A DICKSON SC

 

ADV. A CHRISTISEN

 

ADV. T PALMER

INSTRUCTED BY:

MATTHEW FRANCIS INC.

 

REFERENCE:

MR. Y MAHARAJ


 


 


 

FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:


 


 


 

ADV. N MAENETJE SC

 

ADV. M MAJOZI

INSTRUCTED BY:

WERKSMANS ATTORNEYS

REFERENCE:

MS. C MANAKA

 

 

FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

ADV. L ABRAHAMS

INSTRUCTED BY:

THE STATE ATTORNEY PRETORIA

REFERENCE:

MS. Z ZENANI

 

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH RESPONDENTS

 

 

 

 

▲ To the top