Beyond Forensics (Pty) Ltd v National Commissioner of South African Police Services and Others (leave to appeal) (2023-046691) [2024] ZAGPPHC 471 (17 May 2024)


3


Picture 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE

(1) REPORTABLE: NO.

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.

(3) REVISED.

2024-05-17

DATE SIGNATURE

Case Number: 2023-046691

In the matter between:

BEYOND FORENSICS (PTY) LTD Applicant

and

THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER, SOUTH

AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE First Respondent

THE DEPUTY NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SUPPORT

SERVICES OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE Second Respondent

THE ACTING SECTION HEAD OF PROCUREMENT

MANAGEMENT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE Third Respondent

THE BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH

AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE Fourth Respondent

THE BID ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH

AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE Fifth Respondent

ECM GROUP (PTY) LTD T/A ECM TECHNOLOGIES Sixth Respondent

ACINO FORENSICS (PTY) LTD Seventh Respondent



This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down 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 down is deemed to be 17 May 2024.



JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL





POTTERILL J



[1] I read the arguments before Tolmay J, the judgment, the applicant’s leave to appeal and the written heads submitted pertaining to the application for leave. I have also listened to argument.



[2] In terms of s17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 leave to appeal may only be given where a Judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.



[3] There is no compelling reason why the appeal should be heard; I find no important points of law that warrant a consideration by a higher court.



[4] I am also unpersuaded that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.



[5] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel if so employed. Costs pertaining to work done after 1 April 2024 are awarded on scale C.





__________________

S. POTTERILL

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT





CASE NO: 2023/046691



HEARD ON: 16 May 2024



FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV. S. GROBLER SC AND ADV. P. VOLMINK



INSTRUCTED BY: Dirk Kotze Attorneys c/o Alant, Gell & Martin Inc.



FOR THE 1ST TO 5TH RESPONDENTS: ADV. Z.Z. MATEBESE SC AND ADV. V. PILLAY



INSTRUCTED BY: The State Attorney



FOR THE 6TH RESPONDENT: ADV. C.M. RIP AND ADV. M. DU PLESSIS



INSTRUCTED BY: Thompson Attorneys c/o Hack, Stupel & Ross Attorneys



FOR THE 7TH RESPONDENT: ADV. R. MOULTRIE SC AND ADV. M.Z. GWALA



INSTRUCTED BY: Webber Wentzel



DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17 May 2024







▲ To the top

Cited documents 1

Legislation 1
1. Superior Courts Act, 2013 1498 citations

Documents citing this one 0