Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Leave to Appeal) (2022/059481) [2025] ZAGPPHC 677 (3 July 2025)

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 677 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Leave to Appeal) (2022/059481) [2025] ZAGPPHC 677 (3 July 2025) Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Leave to Appeal) (2022/059481) [2025] ZAGPPHC 677 (3 July 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_677.html sino date 3 July 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: 2022/059481 DOH: 20 JUNE 2025 DECIDED: 03 JULY 2025 1)       REPORTABLE: NO 2)       OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO 3)       REVISED. DATE 03 JULY 2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: TURNERS SHIPPING (Pty) LTD Applicant And COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE Respondent This judgment has been handed down remotely and shall be circulated to the parties by way of email / uploading on Caselines. The date of hand down shall be deemed to be 03 July 2025. ORDER 1. Leave is granted to the Full Court of this Division. 2. Costs will be costs in the appeal. JUDGMENT Bam J 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division, alternatively to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Applicant’s grounds of appeal are set out in its Notice of Application for leave to appeal, filed on 13 August 2024. 2. Legislative provision for applications for leave to appeal is made in Section 17(1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Superior Court Act [1] . The applicable provisions may be summarized thus: ‘ Section 17 (1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that: (a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or (ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;’ Summary of the parties’ contentions 3. Applicant advances grounds on which it contends leave may be competently granted on both subsection (1) (a) (i) and (ii). The respondent is opposing the application. They cite the trite principle that an appeal lies against the order and not at the reasons. On the basis that the grounds advanced by the applicant would not change the order granted by this court, they say leave must be refused. Test for leave to appeal 4. The test for leave to appeal is whether there are any reasonable prospects of success in an appeal. It is not whether a litigant has an arguable case or a mere possibility of success [2] . ‘If the court is unpersuaded of the prospects of success, it must still enquire into whether there is a compelling reason to entertain the appeal. A compelling reason includes an important question of law or a discreet issue of public importance that will have an effect on future disputes. But here too, the merits remain vitally important and are often decisive.’ [3] Applicant’s grounds 5. The applicant advances, inter alia , the following grounds in its application: 5.1 The court erred in finding that the applicant falls within the definition of exporter; 5.2 The Court erred in finding that the respondent has legal basis to hold the applicant liable as agent for payment of duties; 5.3 The Court erred in finding that the applicant is not the person concerned for purposes of Section 76A; 5.4 The Court erred in finding that the amount demanded is deemed to be duty for purposes of recoverability; 5.5 The Court erred in finding that liability under Section 76A arises at the time of demand. 6. Applicant contends that as a result of misconstruing its conduct, the court came to the incorrect conclusion, presumably as to the applicant’s liability. 7. I have carefully considered the applicant’s grounds for leave. I am persuaded that another court may come to a different finding. Accordingly leave is granted to the Full Court of this Division. Order 1. Leave is granted to the Full Court of this Division. 2. Costs will be costs in the appeal. N.N BAM J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Date of Hearing:                                            20 June 2025 Date of Judgment:                                         03 July 2025 Appearances : Applicant’s Counsel : Adv J.P Vorster SC with him Adv Adv L.K Olsen Instructed by: EVH Inc Van Hyssteen ℅ Klagsbruin, Edelstein, Bosman Du Plessis Inc Nieuw Muckleneuk, Pretoria Respondent’s Counsel: Adv J Peter SC with him Adv K Boshomane Instructed by: MacRobert Attorneys Brooklyn, Pretoria [1] Act 10 of 2013. [2] Mothuloe Incorporated Attorneys v Law Society of the Northern Province and Another (213/16) [2017] ZASCA 17 (22 March 2017), paragraph 18. [3] Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd (982/18) [2020] ZASCA 17 ; 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) (25 March 2020). sino noindex make_database footer start