Aphiri v Mohalelo and Another (67331/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 627 (16 August 2022)

Aphiri v Mohalelo and Another (67331/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 627 (16 August 2022)

The court found that the appellant failed to advance any compelling reason for the recusal of the presiding judge or for the granting of leave to appeal. The citation of the judge as a respondent was deemed an irregular proceeding and not in accordance with established practice. The appellant's allegations of bias, discrimination, and denial of access to court were unfounded and unsupported by the facts. The costs order against the appellant was justified due to his conduct resulting in unnecessary postponement and proceedings. The application for leave to appeal did not meet the statutory threshold for reasonable prospects of success and was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 627
Parties
Appellant: John Tsietsi Aphiri (formarly t/a Aphiri Attorneys); Respondent: Joel Thabo Mohalelo; Respondent: Honourable Judge Holland-Muter
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2022
Case Number
67331/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Holland-Muter
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Recusal of Judge, Costs Order, Irregular Proceedings
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Recusal of Judge Costs Order Irregular Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Tsietsi Aphiri (formarly t/a Aphiri Attorneys)

Appellant

Joel Thabo Mohalelo

Respondent

Honourable Judge Holland-Muter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
  2. 2 Whether the citation of the presiding judge as a respondent constitutes an irregular proceeding.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant advanced any compelling grounds for recusal of the judge.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to advance any compelling reason for the recusal of the presiding judge or for the granting of leave to appeal. The citation of the judge as a respondent was deemed an irregular proceeding and not in accordance with established practice. The appellant's allegations of bias, discrimination, and denial of access to court were unfounded and unsupported by the facts. The costs order against the appellant was justified due to his conduct resulting in unnecessary postponement and proceedings. The application for leave to appeal did not meet the statutory threshold for reasonable prospects of success and was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.