Judgment summary
This judgment concerns an application by SARS for leave to appeal an earlier judgment of the same court dated 26 May 2025, which had been decided in favour of Poseidon Operations (Pty) Ltd.
The court (Bam J) noted as a preliminary matter that Poseidon had filed no papers to oppose the application, as no heads of argument could be located on Caselines and the registrar confirmed that nothing had been emailed to her office before the hearing [1].
The court considered the applicable legal principles under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, including the requirements of a reasonable prospect of success or some other compelling reason for an appeal to be heard [2]. The court noted that a mere possibility of success, an arguable case or one that is not hopeless is not enough [3].
SARS raised nine thematic grounds of appeal. The court addressed each ground and found none to have merit, dismissing the application for leave to appeal [Order, paragraphs 7 to 15].
Background
The underlying dispute concerned whether Poseidon Operations (Pty) Ltd had demonstrated that goods had been exported to Katanga. The judgment under appeal was handed down by the same court on 26 May 2025 [1].
The original proceedings involved, among other things, questions about the delivery of goods, the alleged swapping of goods, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the relevance of COVID-19 regulations, the granting of condonation, and the proper conduct of SARS in its investigation [6 to 15].
Poseidon filed no papers to oppose the leave to appeal application, and the present judgment proceeded on that basis [1].
Core dispute
The central question before the court was whether SARS had demonstrated, on any of its nine grounds, that there was a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different decision from that in the judgment of 26 May 2025, or that there was some other compelling reason to grant leave to appeal [2 to 3].
SARS challenged, amongst other things, the court's findings that Poseidon had demonstrated that goods were exported to Katanga, that SARS had to conduct a proper and fair investigation, that the goods had been swapped, that hearsay evidence was admissible, that COVID-19 regulations were relevant, that condonation had been properly granted, that certain annexures constituted evidence of delivery, that the evidence of Ntumba Euxodie was admissible, and that there were no material disputes of fact [6 to 15].
Court findings
On the first ground, the court found that the judgment of 26 May 2025 had adequately dealt with the conclusion that Poseidon demonstrated the goods had been exported to Katanga, and saw no reason to depart from it [7].
On the second ground, the court noted that it was incorrect that the judgment had found SARS was required to investigate whether the goods had been diverted; that statement did not appear anywhere in the judgment [8].
On the third ground, the court found that both the founding and answering affidavits clearly contained averments that the goods had been swapped, contrary to SARS' contention [9].
On the fourth ground concerning hearsay evidence, the court found that the judgment set out a detailed account of why it was in the interests of justice to admit the hearsay evidence, and that SARS' criticism did not interact with that reasoning. The court also noted that sniping at factual or legal reasoning without demonstrating how alleged errors materially impact the substantive order does not assist a litigant [10].
On the fifth ground, the court found that the role of COVID-19 regulations was made abundantly clear in the judgment [11].
On the sixth ground concerning condonation, the court found that SARS merely stated the court had erred without interacting with the reasoning, and that this could not constitute a ground of appeal. The court referred to the trite principles governing appellate interference with a lower court's exercise of discretion and found there was no merit to this ground [12].
On the seventh ground concerning annexures I, J, K, L1 and L2, the court found that its reasoning for admitting that evidence was clearly set out in the judgment [13].
On the eighth ground concerning the evidence of Ntumba Euxodie, the court found that the judgment provided adequate reasons for admitting that evidence [14].
On the ninth ground, the court found that SARS had made the claim of material disputes of fact without any effort to demonstrate what those disputes were or where they had been addressed, and stood by the finding that there were no material disputes of fact [15].
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed [Order paragraph 1].
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether SARS demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding the court's finding that Poseidon had proved the goods were exported to Katanga [7].
- Whether the court erred in finding that SARS had to conduct a proper and fair investigation [8].
- Whether the founding affidavit contained averments that the goods had been swapped [9].
- Whether the court correctly admitted hearsay evidence on the basis that it was in the interests of justice to do so [10].
- Whether the relevance of COVID-19 regulations was adequately explained in the judgment [11].
- Whether the court's exercise of its discretion in granting condonation was open to appellate interference [12].
- Whether annexures I, J, K, L1 and L2 were properly admitted as evidence that the goods were delivered [13].
- Whether the evidence of Ntumba Euxodie was properly admitted [14].
- Whether the court erred in finding that there were no material disputes of fact [15].