Besserglik v Minister of Trade and Industries (6527/92) [1995] ZAGPHC 1 (15 May 1995)

Besserglik v Minister of Trade and Industries (6527/92) [1995] ZAGPHC 1 (15 May 1995)

The court found that all arguments advanced for leave to appeal had already been considered in the original judgment. The question of the documents was a red herring, and the applicant's own conduct as a witness undermined his case. The issue of the onus of proof was rendered moot by the applicant's agreement during the pre-trial conference to bear the onus. The appellate division's possible future pronouncements on the onus would not affect the outcome of this case, nor justify reopening the matter. The grounds for leave to appeal did not advance the applicant's case, and the fairest order regarding costs was for the applicant to pay the reserved costs if leave was refused.

Citation
[1995] ZAGPHC 1
Parties
Applicant: O Besserglik; Respondent: Minister of Trade and Industries
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 1995
Case Number
6527/92
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including the costs of the postponement on 8 September 1994.
Judges
Curlewis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Onus of Proof, Reserved Costs
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Onus of Proof Reserved Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O Besserglik

Applicant

Minister of Trade and Industries

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the onus of proof in unlawful arrest cases should have been placed on the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should bear the reserved costs if leave to appeal is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all arguments advanced for leave to appeal had already been considered in the original judgment. The question of the documents was a red herring, and the applicant's own conduct as a witness undermined his case. The issue of the onus of proof was rendered moot by the applicant's agreement during the pre-trial conference to bear the onus. The appellate division's possible future pronouncements on the onus would not affect the outcome of this case, nor justify reopening the matter. The grounds for leave to appeal did not advance the applicant's case, and the fairest order regarding costs was for the applicant to pay the reserved costs if leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including the costs of the postponement on 8 September 1994.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs, including the costs of the postponement on 8 September 1994.