REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 23159/2019 

(1)	REPORTABLE: NO
(2)	OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  NO
(3)	REVISED. 

In the matter between:

KUBENTHERAN MOODLEY					Applicant

And

THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL 
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO 
ALLEGATIONS OF STATE CAPTURE, 
CORRUPTION AND FRAUD IN THE 
PUBLIC SECTOR INCLUDING ORGANS 
OF STATE	 							First Respondent

and

KNOX TITANIUM VAULT COMPANY (PTY) LTD		Second Respondent

___________________________________________________________________ 

J U D G M E N T IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST RESONDENT’S
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
 
MODIBA, J:
[1]	This is an opposed application for leave to appeal the judgment and order I handed down on 21 August 2019, upholding the applicant’s application to set aside the summons the first respondent issued on 24 June 2019 (“the setting aside application”). 

[2]	For convenience, I use the parties’ citation in the setting aside application. 

[3]	The first respondent relies on section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. It provides: 
“(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;”

[4]	The first respondent has set out his grounds of appeal in detail. Their gravamen is that I erred in the interpretation I accorded to sections 3(1) and (2) of the Commission’s Act and Regulations 4(1) and (2) of the Commission’s Regulations and in awarding costs to the applicant. He contends that there are reasonable prospects that another court would construe these provisions differently, as well as return a different order in respect of costs. Only Mr. Moodley opposes the application. He contends that there are no prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion on these issues. 

[6]	I have considered the grounds for appeal as set out in the first respondent’s notice of appeal as well as submissions by counsel for the parties. I stand by my reasons for judgment as set out in the judgment handed down in this matter.  

[8]	I find that the first respondent fails to meet the threshold referred to above. 

[9]	In the premises, the application stands to be dismissed with costs. 

[10]	I therefore make the following order:

ORDER

1.	The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. 

______________________________
							      MADAM JUSTICE L T MODIBA
					    JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
				GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

APPEARENCES:
Counsel for Applicant:				Advocate M Hellens SC 	
Attorney for Applicant:				Peyper Attorneys
Counsel for First Respondents:	 		Advocate V Ngalwana SC	    Attorney for First Respondents:			Shandu Attorneys
Date heard: 						20 September 2019
Date of judgment:					10 October 2019