Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]          On 19 June 2020 this Court ordered that the criteria which third and fourth respondents employed for determining which persons or entities are entitled to receive finds under the Debt Finance Scheme and the Business Growth Resilience Fund be reviewed and set aside and thus declared unlawful.  Of relevance to this application for leave to appeal are  the following two paragraphs of this order:

‘3.        In the reformulation of criteria to be employed in the distribution of funds and the either the Debt Finance Scheme or the Business Growth Resilience Fund, the Minister must take into account race, gender, youth and disability.

4.         There is no award as to costs.’

[2]          The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order. There is no appeal by any respondent against the balance of the order.

[3]          In terms of s 17 (1) (a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ,leave to appeal may only be granted when;

(i)            the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or

(ii)          there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be  heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. (our emphasis)