Compensation Commissioner and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (49156/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 263 (18 March 2024)

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 >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 263 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Compensation Commissioner and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (49156/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 263 (18 March 2024) Compensation Commissioner and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (49156/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 263 (18 March 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_263.html sino date 18 March 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No:  49156/2021 (1)          REPORTABLE: YES/ NO (2)          OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/ NO (3)          REVISED. DATE: 18 March 2024 SIGNATURE In the matter between: COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER 1 st APPLICANT DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT LABOUR 2 ND APPLICANT THE MINISTER OF LABOUR 3 RD APPLICANT and COMPENSATION SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT HF JACOBS, AJ: [1] This is an application for leave to appeal an order upholding the exceptions noted by the respondent to two special pleas of prescription raised by the applicants.  The principles applicable to applications for leave to appeal are set out in Hunter [1] . [2] The grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought against the order upholding the exception in respect of the first special plea of prescription based on sections 43 and 44 of the COIDA are without any merit. Those points have been decided on by our courts on more than one occasion.  I am not of the opinion that the appeal against the order granted in that regard has any prospect of success or that any other compelling reason exist why leave to appeal should be granted to the applicants. [3] The main judgment explains why the second special plea lacks essential averments concerning the plea of prescription.  Pleadings serve important functions in civil litigation namely to inform an opponent of the case to be met and to set out, for the convenience of the court, sufficient allegations of fact to distil the facta probanda .  The applicants’ pleading falls foul of the required standard.  In my opinion the proposed appeal has no prospect of success and there exist no compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted. [4] The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs. H F JACOBS ACTING Judge of the High Court GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by e-mail.  The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 14h00 on the 18 th March 2024. APPERANCES Counsel for applicants: Adv M Makhubela Adv M S Netso Attorneys for defendants/respondents: State Attorney Counsel for plaintiff/excipient: Adv E J J Nel Attorneys for plaintiff/excipient: Quiryn Spruyt Attorneys [1] Hunter v Financial Services Board 2017 JBR 0941 (GP); Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA); Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Southern Africa Litigation Centre and Others 2016 (3) SA 317 (SCA); sino noindex make_database footer start