Kgosiemang v MEC for the Department of Health, North-West Province (308/2011) [2013] ZANWHC 40 (19 April 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZANWHC 40
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- 308/2011
More details
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- 308/2011
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, given the numerous factual findings and sub-issues decided in the original judgment, it could not be said that another court would not reasonably reach a different conclusion. The matter is of considerable importance to both parties, and the interests of justice require that leave to appeal and cross-appeal be granted. Accordingly, both applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted to the Full Bench of the North West High Court, with costs to be costs in the appeal. The Registrar is requested to give priority to the enrolment of the appeal due to the applicant's deteriorating health.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted to the Full Bench of the North West High Court.
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14 February 2013 on the grounds listed as A, B and C in the notice of application.
- The respondent is granted leave to cross-appeal against the judgment on the grounds set out in paragraph 1 of its application for leave to appeal.
- Leave to appeal and cross-appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this Court.
- The costs of the application to appeal and the application to cross-appeal are to be costs in the appeal.
- The Registrar is requested to give priority to the enrolment of this appeal due to the applicant's deteriorating health.
02
Material facts
Parties
Galaletsang Ursula Kgosiemang
Applicant Counsel: Adv J H F Pistor SCMEC for the Department of Health, North West Province
Respondent Counsel: Dr Senatle03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Following Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the applicant against the judgment delivered on 14 February 2013.
- 02
Whether leave to cross-appeal should be granted to the respondent against part of the judgment.
- 03
Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion.
- 04
Whether the matter is of substantial importance to the parties and in the interests of justice.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the factual findings and legal conclusions reached in the judgment of 14 February 2013. The grounds for appeal are set out in the notice of application, and the applicant asserts that the matter is of substantial importance and that justice requires leave to appeal be granted.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposes the applicant's application for leave to appeal but has filed a notice for leave to cross-appeal, arguing that there are reasonable prospects of success on the grounds set out in paragraph 1 of its application. The respondent maintains that the matter is important and that another court may reasonably reach a different conclusion.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should be granted where there is a reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding, the case is of substantial importance to the parties, or it is in the interests of justice.
- 02
Westinghouse Brake and Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 555 (A)
A court must consider whether another court could reasonably come to a different conclusion on the facts or law.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, given the numerous factual findings and sub-issues decided in the original judgment, it could not be said that another court would not reasonably reach a different conclusion. The matter is of considerable importance to both parties, and the interests of justice require that leave to appeal and cross-appeal be granted. Accordingly, both applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted to the Full Bench of the North West High Court, with costs to be costs in the appeal. The Registrar is requested to give priority to the enrolment of the appeal due to the applicant's deteriorating health.
Obiter and limits
- The court notes the urgency of the matter in light of the applicant's deteriorating health and requests the Registrar to prioritise the enrolment of the appeal.
- The multiplicity of factual findings and sub-issues in the original judgment increases the likelihood that another court may reach a different conclusion.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted to the Full Bench of the North West High Court.
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14 February 2013 on the grounds listed as A, B and C in the notice of application.
- The respondent is granted leave to cross-appeal against the judgment on the grounds set out in paragraph 1 of its application for leave to appeal.
- Leave to appeal and cross-appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this Court.
- The costs of the application to appeal and the application to cross-appeal are to be costs in the appeal.
- The Registrar is requested to give priority to the enrolment of this appeal due to the applicant's deteriorating health.
Source and reliance status
North West High Court, Mafikeng
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.
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Ruling
IN THE NORTH
WEST HIGH COURT
(MAFIKENG)
CASE NO.: 308/2011
In the matter between:
GALALETSANG
URSULA KGOSIEMANG ...................................APPLICANT/PLAINTFF
and
MEC FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
NORTH WEST
PROVINCE ....................................................RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
______________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL
LANDMAN J:
[1] The applicant (plaintiff in the trial) applies for leave to appeal against certain parts of my judgment in the abovementioned matter delivered on 14 February 2013. The application is opposed.
[2] The respondent (the defendant in the trial) has in turn filed a notice for leave to cross-appeal against part of my judgment. This application for leave to appeal is opposed.
[3] Leave to appeal should be granted where:
(a) there is a reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding;
(b) if the case is of substantial importance to the applicant or to the respondent;
(c) if it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.
[4] In order to arrive at the factual findings which I made I was required to make a great number of decisions on sub-issues. I cannot say as regards the application for leave to appeal and the application to cross-appeal that another court could not reasonably come to a different conclusion. The matter is of considerable importance to both parties and it would be in the interests of justice to grant the relief sought in these applications.
[5] In the result:
1. The applicant is granted leave to appeal against my judgment dated 14 February 2013 on the grounds listed as A, B and C in the notice of application.
2. The respondent is granted leave to appeal to cross-appeal against my judgment on the grounds set out in paragraph 1 of its application for leave to appeal.
3. The leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this Court.
4. The costs of the application to appeal and the application to cross-appeal are to be costs in the appeal.
5. In view of the deterioration of the health of the young applicant the Registrar is requested to give priority to the enrolment of this appeal.
A A LANDMAN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
APPEARANCES:
date of hearing : 19 April 2013
date of judgment : 19 April 2013
date of reasons : 25 April 2013
for the applicant : adv j h f pistor sc
for the respondent : dr senatle
attorneys for applicant : motlhabani attorneys
attorneys for respondent : state attorney
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.