Jamieson v Sabingo (99/17038) [2000] ZAGPHC 10 (13 April 2000)

Jamieson v Sabingo (99/17038) [2000] ZAGPHC 10 (13 April 2000)

The court found that the law on the issue decided in the earlier judgment is unsettled and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The interests of justice and the convenience of the parties justify granting leave to appeal, even if the order is interlocutory. Both parties agreed that the matter warrants appellate consideration. The court exercised its discretion under section 20(5) of the Supreme Court Act to grant leave to appeal and directed that the appeal be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The court also suspended its earlier order pending the outcome of the appeal and ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2000] ZAGPHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Jamieson, Neil; Plaintiff: Jamieson, Neil; Defendant: Sabingo, Amindo Cesar
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2000
Case Number
99/17038
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; order suspended pending appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Order, Suspension of Order, Costs in Appeal
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order Suspension of Order Costs in Appeal

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

Jamieson, Neil

Applicant

Jamieson, Neil

Plaintiff

Sabingo, Amindo Cesar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment and order given earlier in the day.
  2. 2 Whether the order granted should be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the application should be costs in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the law on the issue decided in the earlier judgment is unsettled and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The interests of justice and the convenience of the parties justify granting leave to appeal, even if the order is interlocutory. Both parties agreed that the matter warrants appellate consideration. The court exercised its discretion under section 20(5) of the Supreme Court Act to grant leave to appeal and directed that the appeal be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The court also suspended its earlier order pending the outcome of the appeal and ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; order suspended pending appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the judgment and order given earlier today is granted.
  • The appeal is to be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal.