IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

Given the inevitability of further petitions and applications for leave to appeal, it is both permissible and necessary to decide the question now.8 9 Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act provides, in relevant part: “(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), and unless the court under exceptional circumstances orders otherwise, the operation and execution of a decision which is the subject of an ap. [...] (2) Subject to subsection (3), unless the court under exceptional circumstances orders otherwise, the operation and execution of a decision that is an interlocutory order not having the effect of a final judgment, which is the subject of an application for leave to appeal or of an appeal, is not suspended pending the decision of the application or appeal. [...] In Zweni it was held that for an interdictory order or relief to be appealable it must: (a) be final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the court of first instance; (b) be definitive of the rights of the parties, in other words, it must grant definite and distinct relief; and (c) have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceeding. [...] 7 15.2 That the court exercise its discretion either to refuse or grant the order sought, having regard to range of considerations, including the existence or absence of a dispute; the utility of the declaratory relief and whether, if granted, it will settle the question in issue between the parties; and considerations of public policy, justice and convenience.16 16 Each of these requirements and. [...] The Director General has no direct knowledge of one of the most important issues before the Court and, because the “so-called ‘confirmatory affidavit’” of the Minister is “sloppy” and meaningless, there is in fact no evidence from the decision-maker before the Court.