Jamieson v Sabingo (99/17038) [2000] ZAGPHC 10 (13 April 2000)
- Citation
- [2000] ZAGPHC 10
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- Willis
- Case number
- 99/17038
More details
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- Willis
- Case number
- 99/17038
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
- The order granted in the judgment this morning is suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Jamieson, Neil
Applicant Counsel: Adv P J VenterJamieson, Neil
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv P J VenterSabingo, Amindo Cesar
Defendant Counsel: Adv M Pincus03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment and order given earlier in the day.
- 02
Whether the order granted should be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.
- 03
Whether the costs of the application should be costs in the appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the law regarding the issue decided in the judgment is unsettled, as evidenced by the case of American Flag plc v Great African T-Shirt Corporation CC, and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The applicant further submitted that, even if the order is interlocutory, the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice warrant the granting of leave to appeal at this stage.
- Respondent
- The respondent, through counsel, accepted that the matter is deserving of an appeal and did not oppose the granting of leave to appeal. The respondent's position was that the questions of law and fact are sufficiently important to require the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 20(5) of the Supreme Court Act
The court has a broad discretion to grant leave to appeal, subject to conditions, in terms of section 20(5) of the Supreme Court Act.
- 02
Rule 49(11) of the Rules of Court
Rule 49(11) of the Rules of Court empowers the court to suspend its previous order or make other directions pending appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The court indicated its willingness to attach conditions to the appeal to protect the interests of both parties and to ensure fairness.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted; order suspended pending appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.
- 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.
- The order granted in the judgment this morning is suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
High Courts - Gauteng
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Courts - Gauteng
Order
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 99/17038
DATE:13 APRIL 2000
In Che ex parte application of:
JAMIESON,NEIL...........................................................................................................Applicant
In the matter between:
JAMIESON, NEIL............................................................................................................ Plaintiff
and
SABINGO,
AMINDO CESAR..................................................................................... Defendant
JUDGMENT
RE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
WILLIS J: Immediately after I had given my judgment and order in the application earlier today,Mr Venter, who appears for the plaintiff,
made an application for leave to appeal. For the reasons which appear in my judgment and indeed from a reading of the case of American Flag , plc .v Great
African T-Shirt Corporation CC, 2000 (l) SA 356 (W) is clear that the law is far from settled with regard to this issue. It seems to me that there are indeed reasonable prospects of success in an appeal. Even if my order given today is to be regarded as interlocutory, I am satisfied that questions such as the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice generally warrant the granting of leave to appeal at this stage.
Indeed, if I understood Mr Pincus, who appears for the defendant, correctly, he accepts that this is a matter deserving of an appeal. In my view the questions of law and of fact are of such a nature that the appeal requires the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In terms of section 20(5) of the Supreme Court Act, I have a broad discretion to grant leave to appeal subject to the conditions.
Furthermore, Rule 49(11) of the Rules of Court also gives the court powers to suspend the order previously given or to make other
directions.
I indicated to the parties during the course of argument that I would be amenable to attaching conditions to the appeal to protect the interests of both parties and to be fair to them both.
Accordingly the following order is made:
1. Leave to appeal against my judgment and order given in this matter earlier today is granted.
2. It is directed that the appeal be heard by che Supreme Court of Appeal.
3. My order granted in the judgment this morning is suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
4. The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF : ADV P J VENTER
Instructed by :Scholtz & Botha
ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT ; ADV M PINCUS
Instructed by :Biccari,Bollo & Mariano
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13 APRIL 2000
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.