Boshielo v Molewa (14/2004) [2005] ZANWHC 35 (20 May 2005)

Boshielo v Molewa (14/2004) [2005] ZANWHC 35 (20 May 2005)

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The summary of facts regarding counsel's withdrawal was not intended as an adverse comment, and the judgment would be amended to address counsel's concerns. The allegation that the judgment was null and void was rejected as lacking merit. Typographical errors were corrected in the revised judgment. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2005] ZANWHC 35
Parties
Applicant: Lebotsang Orphan Boshielo; Respondent: Ntshimane Philemon Molewa
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2005
Case Number
14/2004
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Upholding Appeal.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
A A Landman, R M Mokgoatlheng
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Default Judgment, Postponement Application, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Default Judgment Postponement Application Costs Award

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebotsang Orphan Boshielo

Applicant

Ntshimane Philemon Molewa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Upholding Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment unfairly commented on counsel's conduct regarding withdrawal after refusal of postponement.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment is null and void as alleged by applicant's counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The summary of facts regarding counsel's withdrawal was not intended as an adverse comment, and the judgment would be amended to address counsel's concerns. The allegation that the judgment was null and void was rejected as lacking merit. Typographical errors were corrected in the revised judgment. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • A revised copy of the judgment correcting typographical errors is attached.