MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal Province and Another v South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority and Others (38719/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1911 (21 November 2023)

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPPHC 1911 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal Province and Another v South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority and Others (38719/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1911 (21 November 2023) MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal Province and Another v South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority and Others (38719/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1911 (21 November 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_1911.html sino date 21 November 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No. 38719/2022 (1)  REPORTABLE: YES /NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES /NO (3)  REVISED: NO DATE:  21 November 2023 SIGNATURE: In the matter between: MEC FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCE First Applicant THE PREMIER OF KWA-ZULU NATAL PROVINCE Second Applicant and THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK PRUDENTIAL AUTHORITY First Respondent THE MINISTER OF FINANCE Second Respondent ITHALA SOC LIMITED Third Respondent ITHALA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED (REG. NO. 2001/007427/30) Fourth Respondent JUDGMENT MILLAR J [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment and order handed down on 29 September 2023. [2] I have carefully considered the order granted by me and the reasons set out in the judgment together with the arguments presented at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal and in the heads of argument filed by all the parties. [3] I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there are any other compelling reasons why leave to appeal ought to be granted. [4] In the circumstances it is ordered: [4.1]      The application for leave to appeal is refused. [4.2]       The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents on the scale as between party and party, such costs to include the cost consequent upon the employment of two counsel where more than one counsel was engaged. A MILLAR JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA HEARD ON: 20 NOVEMBER 2023 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 21 NOVEMBER 2023 FOR THE APPLICANTS: ADV. A DICKSON SC ADV. A CHRISTISEN ADV. T PALMER INSTRUCTED BY: MATTHEW FRANCIS INC. REFERENCE: MR. Y MAHARAJ FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: ADV. N MAENETJE SC ADV. M MAJOZI INSTRUCTED BY: WERKSMANS ATTORNEYS REFERENCE: MS. C MANAKA FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: ADV. L ABRAHAMS INSTRUCTED BY: THE STATE ATTORNEY  PRETORIA REFERENCE: MS. Z ZENANI NO APPEARANCE FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH RESPONDENTS sino noindex make_database footer start