Koko v Tanton (2021/2212) [2021] ZAGPJHC 811 (14 December 2021)

Koko v Tanton (2021/2212) [2021] ZAGPJHC 811 (14 December 2021)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no compelling reason for appellate intervention. The application to strike out was properly considered and dismissed, as the evidence sought to be struck was not abusive, irrelevant, or vexatious. The costs order was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, and the applicant was not substantially successful, having abandoned all relief in the Notice of Motion. The removal of the offending tweet did not constitute success warranting a costs award. The appeal would have no practical effect or result, and no complex legal or public interest issues arose. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 811
Parties
Applicant: Matshela Moses Koko; Respondent: Barbara Tanton
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Case Number
2021/2212
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Orders of 7 September 2021
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
A. De Wet
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Award, Application to Strike Out, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Award Application to Strike Out Abuse of Process

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matshela Moses Koko

Applicant

Barbara Tanton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Orders of 7 September 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of the application to strike out under rule 6(15) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the costs order awarded against the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal raises any reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no compelling reason for appellate intervention. The application to strike out was properly considered and dismissed, as the evidence sought to be struck was not abusive, irrelevant, or vexatious. The costs order was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, and the applicant was not substantially successful, having abandoned all relief in the Notice of Motion. The removal of the offending tweet did not constitute success warranting a costs award. The appeal would have no practical effect or result, and no complex legal or public interest issues arose. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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