Case Law[2025] ZAGPPHC 311South Africa
Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (081565/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 311 (26 March 2025)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
26 March 2025
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPPHC 311
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (081565/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 311 (26 March 2025)
Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (081565/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 311 (26 March 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_311.html
sino date 26 March 2025
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 081565/2023
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
DATE
26 March 2025
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
SMADA
SECURITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Appellant/Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
JUDGMENT
(The
matter was heard in open court and judgment was reserved. A written
judgment was uploaded onto the electronic file of the matter
on
CaseLines and the date of uploading thereof onto CaseLines is deemed
to be the date of the judgment)
BEFORE:
HOLLAND-MUTER J:
[1]
The issue of when leave to appeal be granted by a judge in the court
a quo
is governed by the provisions of Section 17 of the
Supreme Court Act, 10 of 2013. Section 17(1)(a)(i) stipulates that
the court
may only grant leave to appeal if the court is of the
opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.
The
word “only” used in this subsection raised the bar of
the test that now applied to the merits indicating a certain measure
of certainty that another court will differ from the court
a quo.
[2]
Subsection 17(1)(a)(ii) stipulates that a court may grant leave to
appeal if there is some other compelling reason why the appeal
should
be heard.
[3]
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that leave should be granted
because there is a reasonable prospect of success taken
into
consideration that the facts most likely support such prospect. It
was argued that the respondent made a clear ‘mistake”
when considering the two tenders received. It was argued that the
respondent should have considered the hard copy of the tenders
which
would indicate that the respondent should have realised that the
electronic tender was incomplete regarding the sector tendered
for
and the different prices between sector A & B in the tenders. The
court was of the view that this was not a mistake but
another court
may decide the opposite.
[4]
Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in view of the
rather large difference in pricing between sector A & B,
the
losses suffered by the appellant may result in the business to be
liquidated and that a large number of employees may lose
their work.
This, he argued, constitutes other compelling circumstances why the
appeal should be granted.
[5]
Taken into consideration all the facts and the arguments raised, I am
of the view that there are reasonable prospect of success
and
compelling circumstances to grant leave to appeal.
[6]
After consideration leave to appeal against the judgment is granted
to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
ORDER:
1.
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in granted.
2.
Costs of the application is costs in the appeal.
HOLLAND-MUTER
J
Judge
of the Pretoria High Court
26
March 2025
Application
was heard on 25 March 2025.
Judgment
was handed down by uploading onto CaseLines on 26 March 2025.
Appearances:
Appellant/Applicant:
Adv A PJ ELS SC
Respondent:
Adv Ramawele SC
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Mabotwane Security Services CC v Madibeng Local Municipality and Others (116843/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 528 (28 May 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 528High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Mabotwane Security Services CC v Madibeng Local Municipality and Others (116843/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2064 (8 January 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 2064High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Umlindi Security Services (Pty) Ltd v National Commissioner of the South African Police Services General KJ Sithole N.O. and Others (42824/2021;44969/2021;43855/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 434 (15 June 2022)
[2022] ZAGPPHC 434High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Brinant Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Rachoshi and Others (A217/2024; 25318/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 160 (14 February 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 160High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Pro Secure (Pty) Ltd v Mogale City Local Municipality and Others (2025-043172) [2025] ZAGPPHC 479 (16 May 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 479High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar