Noge-Tungamirai v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others (Leave to Appeal) (107704/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1350 (10 December 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 1350 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Noge-Tungamirai v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others (Leave to Appeal) (107704/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1350 (10 December 2025) Noge-Tungamirai v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others (Leave to Appeal) (107704/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1350 (10 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1350.html sino date 10 December 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No: 107704/2023 (1)      REPORTABLE: No (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3)      REVISED: DATE 10 DECEMBER 2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: LETLHOGONOLO NOGE-TUNGAMIRAI Applicant and MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS AND DIGITAL First Respondent TECHNOLOGIES THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AND Second Respondent DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES POSTBANK (SOC) LIMITED Third Respondent This judgment is prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected as such 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 10 December 2025. JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL RETIEF J INTRODUCTION [1]         The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order, including costs, to the Full Court of this Division, alternatively to the Supreme Court of Appeal in respect of the order dated the 18 August 2025. [2]         Leave to appeal is sought in circumstances when the applicant was successful with her review relief but, in circumstances where the decision by the First Respondent [the Minister] although found to be unlawful for want of procedural fairness was, not set aside as reasoned in the judgment. [3]         Although this Court granted costs in the applicant’s favour, save for the costs associated with the applicant’s supplementary affidavit, the applicant now seeks punitive costs against the Minister. In consideration of what is before this Court on application, as a whole, it appears that the nub of the complaint is that the Court misdirected itself by not exercising its discretion judicially to allow the applicant’s supplementary affidavit into evidence. The applicant by means of her supplementary affidavit  introduced yet a further  ground of review, the  ulterior motive of the Minister. This of course is sought to bolster her claim for punitive costs and remedial re-instatement relief and not, for the fact that the Minister’s decision was found to be unlawful. This is so as any other reason/s to be found that may substantiate yet a further reason why the Minister’s decision still ought to be found unlawful, will not alter the fact that it has already been found unlawful and reviewable. [4]         However, if the Minister’s decision is found not to be rational as reasoned, then the prospect of it being set aside and any consequences of remedial relief, if demonstrated, may flow. [5]         Therefore, and on that narrow basis, this Court grants the applicant leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division regarding the issues to be determined regarding the outcomes of prayers 3 and 4 and sequelae , of the order dated the 18 August 2025. [6]         In so far as the costs of this application are concerned, the Minister nor the Second Respondent opposed the application and the Court considered the application on paper, in consequence no cost order should follow the result. [7]         The following order: 1.     The Applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division which is to determine whether the First Respondent’s unlawful decision to remove the Applicant from the Board of the S.A. Postbank SOC Limited is to be set-aside, including the prospect of the Applicant’s remedial relief claimed and costs. L.A. RETIEF Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division Appearances : For the Applicant: Adv Mashigo Sandton Chambers Instructed by attorneys: Kganare and Khumalo Incorporated Tel: (010) 300 6165 Email: kganare@kkinc.co.za Ref: KK/gen/CIV/24/LT1 Date of heads of argument: 20 November 2025 Date of judgment : 10 December 2025 sino noindex make_database footer start