Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd and Another v Mbatha and Another (2023-0001343) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1107 (4 October 2023)

Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd and Another v Mbatha and Another (2023-0001343) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1107 (4 October 2023)

The court found that the grounds raised in support of the application for leave to appeal did not meet the threshold set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant was not the subject of the judgment on the merits, and the referral to the Provincial Director of Public Prosecutions was for investigation into possible contravention of the Legal Practice Act, not a finding on the merits. There were no reasonable prospects that the appeal would succeed, nor were there compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1107
Parties
Applicant: Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited; Applicant: Randfontein Estates Limited; Respondent: Bongumusa Cyprian Mbatha; Respondent: Thuthukani Community Development NPC; Respondent: Mpho Pakkies; Respondent: Kedibone Gladys Molefe; Respondent: Abert Tsotsi Molefe; Respondent: Sonto Ayabonga Biyela; Respondent: The Residents of Ward 53 of Slovoville Township and Surroundings Involved and/or Partaking in the Interdicted Activities
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2023
Case Number
2023-0001343
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
ML Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Costs Order, Legal Practice Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Costs Order Legal Practice 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited

Applicant

Randfontein Estates Limited

Applicant

Bongumusa Cyprian Mbatha

Respondent

Thuthukani Community Development NPC

Respondent

Mpho Pakkies

Respondent

Kedibone Gladys Molefe

Respondent

Abert Tsotsi Molefe

Respondent

Sonto Ayabonga Biyela

Respondent

The Residents of Ward 53 of Slovoville Township and Surroundings Involved and/or Partaking in the Interdicted Activities

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against portions of the judgment and order handed down on 5 July 2023.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was prejudiced by not being afforded an opportunity to state his case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds raised in support of the application for leave to appeal did not meet the threshold set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant was not the subject of the judgment on the merits, and the referral to the Provincial Director of Public Prosecutions was for investigation into possible contravention of the Legal Practice Act, not a finding on the merits. There were no reasonable prospects that the appeal would succeed, nor were there compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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