Cyril and Another v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Walter Eleazar Cyril and Letisha Cyril were charged in a pending criminal trial with multiple counts of fraud and contraventions of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964, arising from the alleged unlawful diversion of cigarettes without payment of duty or VAT. Evidence against them was obtained during a search of a bonded warehouse conducted by SARS under provisions of the Customs and Excise Act later declared unconstitutional in Gaertner v Minister of Finance. Although the Constitutional Court suspended the declaration of invalidity and ordered it not to operate retrospectively, the Cyrils challenged the admissibility of the evidence. After a trial-within-a-trial, the magistrate ruled the evidence admissible. While the criminal trial was still pending, the Cyrils launched a High Court review application to set aside that ruling. SARS, as complainant in the criminal case, applied for and was granted leave to intervene in the review application. The Cyrils appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the High Court’s order granting SARS leave to intervene.

The appeal was struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction, with costs, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the costs of two counsel.

The case reaffirms and clarifies South African law on appealability, particularly that interlocutory orders—such as orders granting intervention—are generally not appealable unless the interests of justice clearly demand it. It underscores the courts’ aversion to piecemeal litigation, especially in criminal proceedings, and confirms that the mere granting of leave to intervene does not infringe an accused’s fair trial rights. The judgment is an important restatement of the modern approach to appealability under the Superior Courts Act.