Forensic Investigation Risk and Recovery Management (Pty) Ltd v Unemployment Insurance Fund and Others (088430-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 921 (16 September 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 921 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Forensic Investigation Risk and Recovery Management (Pty) Ltd v Unemployment Insurance Fund and Others (088430-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 921 (16 September 2024) Forensic Investigation Risk and Recovery Management (Pty) Ltd v Unemployment Insurance Fund and Others (088430-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 921 (16 September 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_921.html sino date 16 September 2024 # REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA 088430-2024 Heard on: 12 September 2024 Judgment: 16 September 2024 (1)      REPORTABLE: NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)      REVISED. DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 2024 SIGNATURE In the matter between: FORENSIC INVESTIGATION RISK AND RECOVERY Applicant MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD And THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND First Respondent 24SIX CA Second Respondent ALTITUDE BUSINESS ADVISORY Third Respondent CHAPU CA Fourth Respondent DITHETO ACCOUNTANTS Fifth Respondent EZEE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Sixth Respondent IZALA VERIFICATORS Seventh Respondent IZALA VERIFICATORS CPT Eighth Respondent KST HOLDING Ninth Respondent KULUNGWANA ACCOUNTANTS Tenth Respondent LEBONE LA AFRICA CONSULTANTS Eleventh Respondent LEOLO AND PARTNERS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Twelfth Respondent MAINE MANAGEMENT AND CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Thirteenth Respondent MKWANAZI INVESTMENTS Fourteenth Respondent MNB CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Fifteenth Respondent MOROBI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Sixteenth Respondent NAMBE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS Seventeenth Respondent NDEMEX CONSULTING Eighteenth Respondent NKS CASA Nineteenth Respondent OMC CONSULTING Twentieth Respondent RSND CONSULTING PROFESSIONALS Twenty-First Respondent SAMBA SOLUTIONS Twenty-Second Respondent SIMDAR CONSULTING Twenty-Third Respondent SONDLO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Twenty-Fourth Respondent SVZ CONSULTING Twenty-Fifth Respondent THABI CONSULTING Twenty-Sixth Respondent THE ACCOUNTING VILLAGE Twenty-Seventh Respondent UBUNTU BUSINESS ADVISORY AND CONSULTING (Listed as UBAC FORENSICS on CIPC)                Twenty-Eighth Respondent THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Twenty-Ninth Respondent This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed 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 is deemed to be 16 September 2024. JUDGMENT STRIJDOM J [1]      In this matter the first and twenty-third respondent seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, alternatively to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division, against the whole of my judgment and costs order handed down on 20 August 2024 in the Urgent Court. [2]      The application for leave to appeal is opposed by the applicant in the main application. [3]      The grounds of appeal in respect of the first and twenty-third respondents are set out in the respective applications for leave to appeal. I do not intend to repeat same. [1] [4]      Applications for leave to appeal are governed by sections 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 (the Act). Section 17 makes provision for leave to be granted where the presiding judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or if there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. [5]      With the enactment of section 17 of the Act, the test has now obtained statutory force and is to be applied using the word “would” in deciding whether to grant leave. In other words, the test is: “Would another Court come to a different decision.” [6]      Each application for leave to appeal must be decided on its own facts. Some examples of what will be regarded as compelling reasons have been identified. They include: (a)      The substantial importance of the case to the applicant or to both the applicant and respondent; (b)      The decision sought to be appealed against involves an important question of law; (c)      The administration of justice either generally or if the particular case concerned requires the appeal to be heard; and (d)      An issue of public importance which will have an effect on future matters. [7]      It is trite that appellants need to convince the Court on proper grounds that they have prospects of success on appeal. Those prospects of success must not be remote, but there must exist a reasonable chance of succeeding. [8]      Having considered all the grounds of appeal raised by the first and twenty-third respondents as well as the facts and the law as presented by the parties, I am of the view that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success. [9]      When the facts and the law were examined, there is in my view also a sound and rational basis for the conclusion that there are compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard. This matter is of substantial importance to both the applicant and the respondents and would raise important constitutional issues and questions of law. [10]    In the result, the following order is made: 1.       Leave to appeal is granted to the first and twenty-third respondents to the Supreme Court of Appeal. 2.       Costs will be costs in the appeal. STRIJDOM J.J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances: For the Applicant in the main application: Adv A Granova Instructed by: V Chetty Inc For the First Respondent: Adv E Van As Instructed by: The State Attorney For the Twenty-Third Respondent: Mr N.P Voyi Instructed by: Voyi Inc Attorneys [1] Caseline: 031 – 1 to 031 – 13 First respondent’s grounds of appeal 031 -1 to 030 – 14. sino noindex make_database footer start