---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

(1)     REPORTABLE: NO

(2)     OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3)     REVISED: NO

Date: 8 October 2021

 

CASE NO: 76995/18

 

In the matter between:

 

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND AND                                              FIRST APPLICANT

MILITARY VETERANS

 

CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN                                                         SECOND APPLICANT

NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE

 

SECRETARY OF DEFENCE AND                                                           THIRD APPLICANT

MILITARY VETERANS

 

THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL                                                       FOURTH APPLICANT

DEFENCE FORCE

 

and

 

LIEUTENANT COLONEL K.B O'BRIEN N.O.                                        FIRST RESPONDENT

 

STAFF SARGEANT D.T. MOKOENA                                                      SECOND RESPONDENT

 

LIEUTENANT P.Z. MABULA                                                                   THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Van der Schyff J

[1]        In this application for leave to appeal, the first respondent applies for leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order handed down on 2 August 2021, except for paragraph 1 of the order and paragraphs 2-5 and 34-35 of the judgment. The parties are referred to as they appeared in the application.

[2]       I considered the first respondent's application, the heads of argument filed by both parties, and the parties' counsel's submissions when addressing the court.

[3]       I am of the view that the judgment deals with questions of law that are important for the administration of military justice. This in itself constitutes. a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard and necessitates the appeal to be considered by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Since the reasons for my judgment are comprehensively set out in the judgment of 2 August 2021, I need not deal with it again in this judgment.

[4]       Since the costs order granted against the first respondent is linked to the findings I came to, it is justified to include the costs order within the scope of the application for leave to appeal.

[5]       There is no reason to deviate from the practice that the costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.

 

ORDER

 

In the result, the following order is made:

 

1.    Leave to appeal is granted;

2.    Leave is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal;

3.    The costs of this application are costs in the appeal.

 

 

 

E van der Schyff

Judge of the High Court, Gauteng, Pretoria

 

Delivered: This judgement is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. As a courtesy gesture, it will be sent to the parties/their legal representatives by e-mail. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 8 October 2021.

 

Counsel for the applicants (respondents

In the application for leave to appeal):                 Adv. E. K. Tstatsi SC

With:                                                                     Adv. T. C. Kwinda

Instructed by:                                                        State Attorney, Pretoria

Counsel for the first respondent (applicant

In the application for leave to appeal):                Adv. C. McConnachie

With:                                                                    Adv. M. Marengo

Instructed by:                                                       Griesel Breytenbach Attorneys

Date of the hearing:                                             8 October 2021

Date of judgment:                                                8 October 2021

---