Du Toit-Smuts & Mathews Phosa Attorneys and Others v Meshack (33002/12) [2017] ZAGPPHC 354 (30 March 2017)

Du Toit-Smuts & Mathews Phosa Attorneys and Others v Meshack (33002/12) [2017] ZAGPPHC 354 (30 March 2017)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. After considering the submissions of both parties, the judge concluded that the grounds for leave to appeal were insufficient and did not warrant reconsideration by another court. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 354
Parties
Applicant: Du Toit-Smuts & Mathews Phosa Attorneys; Applicant: Mr Joshua Scheepers; Applicant: Dr Nakedi Mathews Phosa; Applicant: Leanda Cilliers Swrheeder; Applicant: Johan Oosthuizen; Applicant: Pieter George; Applicant: Slabbert van Zyl; Applicant: Khadija Dockrat; Respondent: Sibanyoni Okie Meshack
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Case Number
33002/12
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
NM Mavundla
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Du Toit-Smuts & Mathews Phosa Attorneys

Applicant

Mr Joshua Scheepers

Applicant

Dr Nakedi Mathews Phosa

Applicant

Leanda Cilliers Swrheeder

Applicant

Johan Oosthuizen

Applicant

Pieter George

Applicant

Slabbert van Zyl

Applicant

Khadija Dockrat

Applicant

Sibanyoni Okie Meshack

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. After considering the submissions of both parties, the judge concluded that the grounds for leave to appeal were insufficient and did not warrant reconsideration by another court. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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