REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA aaa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 36099/2020 In the matter between: PRAVIN JAMNADAS GORDHAN FIRST APPLICANT GEORGE NGAKNAE VIRGIL MAGASHULA SECOND APPLICANT VISVANATHAN PILLAY THIRD APPLICANT And THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR FIRST RESPONDENT BUSISIWE MKHWEBANE SECOND RESPONDENTTHE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA VISVANATHAN PILLAY GEORGE NGAKANE VIRGIL MAGASHULE COMMISSINER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES THIRD RESPONDENT FOURTH RESPONDENT FIFTH RESPONDENT SIXTH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 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 10h00 on the 7th of April 2021. THE COURT [1] For the sake of convenience, in this judgment we shall refer to the parties as in convention. The second applicant and the third, fifth and sixth respondents are not participating in this application. This Court directed that this matter be determined on the papers without an oral hearing as is provided for in the Gauteng Division Consolidated Directives re Court Operations during the National State of Disaster issued by the Judge President of this Division on 18 September 2020. [2] Before this Court is an application brought by the first and second respondents for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order (except for those orders favourable to it) of this Court handed downBl [4] [5] electronically on the 19" of December 2020 granting the relief sought by the applicants. Furthermore, the first and third applicants launched their own application to cross appeal the judgment and order in so far as the Court found against them. Itis a trite principle of our law that leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concemed are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. (See section 17 (1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013). The grounds for the leave to appeal and cross appeal are succinctly stated in the respective notices of application for leave to appeal and cross appeal and need not be repeated in this judgment. Furthermore, we extend our gratitude and appreciation to counsel for their concise heads of argument and the submissions made therein. We are satisfied that all the issues raised in these applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal were fully covered and considered in the judgment. We are therefore of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success of the appeal. Put differently, we hold the view that there is no prospect that another Court may come to a different conclusion in this case. Therefore, the applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal the judgment fall to be dismissed.[6] Inthe circumstances, the following order is granted: 1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs including costs of two counsel; 2. The application to cross appeal is dismissed with costs including costs of two counsel, EM. elt KUBUSHIEM™ JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TWALA ML JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. DAVISN JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Date of Judgment: 7 April 2021 First Applicant’s Counsel : Adv. W. Trengrove SC Adv. M, Le RouxThird Applicant’s Counsel : Ady. R. Hutton SC Adv. C. Van Castricum Third Applicant's Attorneys : Werksmans Attorneys. First & Second Respondents’ Counsel: Adv. D. Mpofu SC Adv. T. Motloenya First & Second Respondents’ Attorneys _: Seanego Attorneys.