Dlodlo v Nkala and Another (16715/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 301 (18 September 2020)

Dlodlo v Nkala and Another (16715/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 301 (18 September 2020)

The court found that the order sought to be appealed was interlocutory in nature and did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties or a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The applicant's rights in respect of the variation application were not prejudiced by the urgent relief granted, and the authorities cited by the respondents were decisive. The founding affidavit attached to the notice of application for leave to appeal was struck out as an irregular proceeding, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs on the attorney and client scale. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the order was not appealable.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 301
Parties
Applicant: Molefe Rufaro Mthulisi Dlodlo; Respondent: Sukoluhle Thando Nkala; Respondent: Herbert Nkala
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Case Number
16715/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Application Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs awarded against applicant on attorney and client scale.
Judges
U. Bhoola
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Costs Award, Striking Out Affidavit
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Costs Award Striking Out Affidavit

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molefe Rufaro Mthulisi Dlodlo

Applicant

Sukoluhle Thando Nkala

Respondent

Herbert Nkala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Application Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order granted on 12 August 2020 is appealable under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's founding affidavit attached to the notice of application for leave to appeal constitutes an irregular proceeding and should be struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should bear the costs of the application to strike out and the application for leave to appeal on the attorney and client scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order sought to be appealed was interlocutory in nature and did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties or a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The applicant's rights in respect of the variation application were not prejudiced by the urgent relief granted, and the authorities cited by the respondents were decisive. The founding affidavit attached to the notice of application for leave to appeal was struck out as an irregular proceeding, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs on the attorney and client scale. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the order was not appealable.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs awarded against applicant on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The founding affidavit to the notice of application for leave to appeal is struck out.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application to strike out on the attorney and client scale.