Iuze Mukube
The legal bout on the continued functionality of the Payroll Deductions Management System (PDMS) is on its way to the Supreme Court.
This follows a notice of intention of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by local microlender Entrepo Finance.
Entrepo seeks leave to appeal the High Court’s dismissal of its application that sought to find the finance minister Ericah Shafudah in contempt of a court order.
The contempt of a court order application dealt with the fact that the minister’s non-compliance with a court order granting the continued use of the PDMS was contemptuous.
Chiefly, the local microlender had lodged an urgent application seeking the continued operation of the government’s payroll deduction management system, which the finance ministry was planning to discontinue at the end of November 2025.
In an order made last year, Deputy Judge President Hannelie Prinsloo granted the application and directed the finance minister not to interfere in the loading of new deductions on the government’s payroll system and not to issue instructions that no new deductions may be loaded onto the system.
Additionally, she ordered the continued operation of the system, with or without Avril, as of 17h00 on 29 August 2025, pending the determination of the matter.
Although an order was given in favour of Entrepo, it lodged an urgent application after it discovered that it was unable to get access to the system since the start of December after the ministry took over the management of the system from Avril.
Furthermore, the company claims that the minister is deliberately not complying with the court order of 28 November, seeing that the PDMS was not functioning.
In an affidavit, the company claims that over 70 000 deductions for a payment that is due to be made on the system in December were not made.
With the application, a second relief was sought for the minister to declare under oath, detailing how she plans to implement a fully functional PDMS, with or without the Avril Payroll Deduction Management.
In the event she fails to comply to detail the system’s implementation under oath, the microlender requested the court to declare and hold the minister in contempt of a court order and to be sentenced to a fine or a period of imprisonment.
However, the application was dismissed by Judge Lotta Ambunda in December.
In her judgement, she pointed out that the “inadequacy in the system does not mean there is no fully functional PDMS that has been maintained post Avril’s agreement”.
She added that Entrepo did also not indicate which functionality disabled it from leading new deductions.
She said the relief sought for the minister to merely explain the plan, detailing how a functional PDSM will be put in place, would not have solved the problem if it existed for Entrepo.
Ambunda added that it is clear on the papers that the minister has maintained the PDMS in the form that it is.
“Therefore, requiring the minister to explain on affidavit when the process has since 10 December 2025 been explained to the applicant will make this court order of no practical effect and enforcement,” she said.
She declined the relief – and since the contempt of court order was depending on the granting of the relief, it also fell away and was dismissed.
Not satisfied, the company is now seeking leave to appeal to the High Court.
Entrepo argues that the court erred in its interpretation of the court order issued by Prinsloo on 28 November 2025.
It argues that had the court applied the correct test to the facts and interpretation, “with or without Avril, the application would have succeeded”.
“The court erred, with respect, when it found that the applicant had only made general assertions as to its inability to access the PDMS and failed to indicate its efforts to do so or show why there are shortcomings in the functionalities of the flow indicated by the ministry,” reads the notice.
It argues that the evidence clearly demonstrates the opposite.
The company added that the court erred, as evidence showed that the minister failed to comply with the court order by not putting a system in place through which the applicant could continue to do business by contracting with new customers.
It submitted that there are reasonable prospects that a different court could come to a different conclusion than the High Court.