Case Summary: Caledon River Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Magwa Constrution Profteam CC v Special Investigating Unit and Another

Author
University of Cape Town
Date
7 September 2022
Language
English
Type
Case summary
Taxonomies

SPECIAL TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Judgment summary

 

Caledon River Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Magwa Constrution Profteam CC v Special Investigating Unit and Another

URL

https://lawlibrary.org.za/za/judgment/special-tribunal-south-africa/2022/40

Citations

(GP 17 of 2020) [2022] ZAST 40

Date of judgment

7 September 2022

Keyword(s):1

Appeal, application, high court, tribunal, right to appeal, automatic, unqualified, decisions, rulings, orders, powers

Case type2

Application

Result

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, and costs shall be costs in the appeal

Flynote3

Court proceedings – appeal against Tribunal’s decisions – litigants have an automatic, unqualified right to appeal and is not required to apply to the Tribunal for leave to appeal

Legislation and International Instruments4

  • Section 8(7) of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act (SIU Act)

  • Sections 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act

Cases cited as authority5

  • Special Investigating Unit and Another v Msagala and Others (GP03 of 2020)

  • Ledla Structural Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v Special Investigating Unit (GP07 2019) [2021] ZAST 32

  • Special Investigating Unit v Fikile Mpofana (Pty) Ltd and Others (GP13/2021) [2022] ZAST 4

Facts6

 

The defendants applied for leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division against the Tribunal’s earlier judgement. The Tribunal raised the following questions mero motu, namely:

  1. whether section 8(7) of the SIU Act and the regulations published in terms thereof provided for the right to appeal against the Tribunals’ decision on leave being granted by the Tribunal; and

  2. whether sections 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act were applicable to determine applications for leave to appeal in the Tribunal.

The second defendant argued that section 16 of the Superior Courts Act qualified a litigant’s right to appeal against the Tribunal’s decision, and therefore required a party to obtain the Tribunal’s leave to appeal against its decision.

Summary7

The Tribunal was asked to determine whether section 8(7) of the SIU Act provided parties with an automatic, unqualified right to appeal against the Tribunal’s decisions to the Full Court of a Division of the High Court with jurisdiction, or whether it required the Tribunal’s leave to appeal such decision as per the Superior Courts Act.

Decision/ Judgment8

The Tribunal found that the first and second defendants’ application for leave to appeal before the Tribunal was not proper and dismissed the application, and the costs of the application were ordered to the costs in the appeal.

Basis of the decision9

The Tribunal held that the wording of section 8(7) of the SIU Act was clear and expressly provided a litigant with the right to appeal against a Tribunal’s ruling, decision or order to a Division of the High Court with jurisdiction. It was an automatic right and unqualified. The Tribunal derived its powers from the SIU Act and not the Superior Courts Act, and therefore section 16 of the Superior Courts Act could not be used to qualify a litigant’s right to appeal against the Tribunal’s decision, orders and rulings.

Reported by

Date

African Legal Information Institute (AfricanLII)

7 September 2022
▲ To the top