The Appellant applied under section 56 of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 ("the Act") for a compulsory licence in respect of a patent. The application was based on sections 56(2)(a) and 56(2)(d) of the Act. The application was dismissed in the court a quo. Held ­ On appeal, the Court considered the provisions of section 56 and held that abuse of patent rights was a cornerstone of the section. Under section 56(2)(a) the Appellant was required to demonstrate as a jurisdictional fact, that the patented invention was not being "worked" in the Republic on and to the requisite scale or extent. The jurisdictional fact to be proved under subsection (2)(d) was a refusal to grant a licence on "reasonable terms".The Court held that the general rule was that an applicant had to make out its case in the founding papers. In case, the Court found that the Appellant's averments in its founding affidavit were little more than a recitation of the words of subsection (2)(a) and not a statement of facts from which a legal conclusion could be drawn. The Appellant had not alleged the jurisdictional facts and no abuse under subsection (2)(a) had been made out. With regard to subsection (2)(d), the Appellant bore the onus of establishing as a jurisdictional fact the reasonableness of the terms of the licence agreement. A bald assertion did not establish the facts necessary for a legal conclusion. The Court found that there was no reason why the Appellant could not have established facts from which (even tentative) conclusions could be made. No serious attempt had been made to prove the essential jurisdictional facts and no case had been made out for abuse under subsection (2)(d). The appeal was dismissed with costs