Hoerskool Menlo Park School Governing Body v City Manager: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (Leave to Appeal) (26999/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1354 (10 December 2024)
The court found that a compelling reason exists for both the applicant and the fifth respondent to be granted leave to appeal. The issues raised, particularly those concerning costs, require determination by the Supreme Court of Appeal to provide legal certainty. The merits of the review application are intertwined...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1354
- Parties
- Applicant: Hoerskool Menlo Park School Governing Body; Respondent: City Manager: City of Tshwane; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Chairperson: Municipal Planning Tribunal; Respondent: Chairperson: The Appeal Authority of the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Optimprops 90 (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 26999/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to both the applicant and the fifth respondent to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Judges
- E van der Schyff
- Legal Topics
- Review Application, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Municipal Planning
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hoerskool Menlo Park School Governing Body
Applicant
City Manager: City of Tshwane
Respondent
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Chairperson: Municipal Planning Tribunal
Respondent
Chairperson: The Appeal Authority of the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Optimprops 90 (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant and fifth respondent should be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, particularly regarding costs and merits of the review application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that a compelling reason exists for both the applicant and the fifth respondent to be granted leave to appeal. The issues raised, particularly those concerning costs, require determination by the Supreme Court of Appeal to provide legal certainty. The merits of the review application are intertwined with the costs issue, justifying the granting of leave to appeal for both parties.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to both the applicant and the fifth respondent to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the order dismissing the review application.
- The fifth respondent is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the costs order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH.AFRICA
IN THE HIGH C-OURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.:26999/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE: 10 December 2024
E van der Schyff
In the matter between:
Hoerskool Menlo Park School Governing Body
Applicant
and
The City Manager: City of Tshwane
First Respondent
Metropolitan Municipality
The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality Second Respondent
The Chairperson: Municipal Planning Tribunal
Third Respondent
The Chairperson: The Appeal Authority of the
Fourth Respondent
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Optimprops 90 (Pty) Ltd
Fifth Respondent
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal. The applicant and the fifth respondent, respectively, apply for leave to appeal the judgment and order handed down by me on 18 October 2024. The applicant additionally filed a notice that it intends to apply for a cross-appeal against the fifth respondent's application for leave to appeal. The parties are referred to as in the main application.
[2] Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 prescribes that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge concerned is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
[3] If regard is had to the fifth respondent's application for leave to appeal, I am of the view that a compelling reason exists for the appeal to be heard. It would provide legal certainty if the Supreme Court of Appeal decides the issues raised in the fifth respondent's appeal. These issues revolve m inly around costs but cannot be determined without having regard to the merits of the application. This, in turn, constitutes a compelling reason for the applicant to be granted leave to appeal as sought in its application for leave to appeal.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the order dismissing the review application.
2. The fifth respondent is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the costs order.
3. The costs of both applications for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines.
For the applicant: Adv. A Vorster Instructed by: Boshoff Incorporated For the fifth respondent: Adv. A Venter Instructed by: Ivan Pauw & Partners Attorneys Date of the hearing: 4 December 2024 Date of judgment: 10 December 2024