Engelbrecht and Another v Mokitimi and Others (Leave to Appeal) (1424/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 48 (3 May 2024)

Engelbrecht and Another v Mokitimi and Others (Leave to Appeal) (1424/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 48 (3 May 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the rescission of the rule nisi. The rescission was properly granted under rule 42(1), as the interim interdict could be set aside by the court mero motu or on application. The applicants were afforded an opportunity to address the court, and all affected parties had notice of the order. The court was not persuaded that there was any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, nor that the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were met. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZANCHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Engelbrecht, Frankel N.O.; Applicant: Makobo, Mmabatho Lucia; Respondent: Mokitimi, Louise Mmaphuti; Respondent: Louw, Tebogo Clifford; Respondent: Mathebula, Shane; Respondent: Nkopane, Itumeleng; Respondent: Zhang, Qing; Respondent: Huang, Chaoqiang
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2024
Case Number
1424/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal Following Rescission of a Rule Nisi.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Nxumalo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rescission of Order, Rule Nisi, Interim Interdict, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Rescission of Order Rule Nisi Interim Interdict Superior Courts Act

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Engelbrecht, Frankel N.O.

Applicant

Makobo, Mmabatho Lucia

Applicant

Mokitimi, Louise Mmaphuti

Respondent

Louw, Tebogo Clifford

Respondent

Mathebula, Shane

Respondent

Nkopane, Itumeleng

Respondent

Zhang, Qing

Respondent

Huang, Chaoqiang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal Following Rescission of a Rule Nisi.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the rescission of the rule nisi.
  2. 2 Whether there exists any other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
  3. 3 Whether the court was correct in rescinding the interim interdict (rule nisi) under rule 42(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the rescission of the rule nisi. The rescission was properly granted under rule 42(1), as the interim interdict could be set aside by the court mero motu or on application. The applicants were afforded an opportunity to address the court, and all affected parties had notice of the order. The court was not persuaded that there was any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, nor that the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were met. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.