Langeni and Another v South African Women in Mining Association and Others (27669-2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 267 (13 March 2024)

Langeni and Another v South African Women in Mining Association and Others (27669-2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 267 (13 March 2024)

The court found that the applicants met the threshold for leave to appeal, as there is a reasonable prospect of success. However, regarding the section 18(3) application, the court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify the execution of the judgment pending appeal. The applicants have not served as directors since November 2022, and no prejudice would be suffered if execution is suspended. Conversely, the respondents and SAMIWA could be prejudiced if the appeal succeeds and the judgment is set aside. The court also considered the prospects of success in the appeal as relevant to the section 18(3) application and...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 267
Parties
Applicant: Noluthando Langeni; Applicant: Katlego Rathebe-Mathole; Respondent: South African Women in Mining Association; Respondent: Victoria Sehako; Respondent: Masikini Sithole; Respondent: Patricia Mahiwa; Respondent: Fezeka Mavuso; Respondent: Mabel Phooko; Respondent: Innocent Mathonsi
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2024
Case Number
27669/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Section 18(3) Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted to the full court; the application to declare that execution of the order is not suspended is refused with costs.
Judges
ML Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Director Removal, Section 18 Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Irreparable Harm
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Director Removal Section 18 Application Exceptional Circumstances Irreparable Harm

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noluthando Langeni

Applicant

Katlego Rathebe-Mathole

Applicant

South African Women in Mining Association

Respondent

Victoria Sehako

Respondent

Masikini Sithole

Respondent

Patricia Mahiwa

Respondent

Fezeka Mavuso

Respondent

Mabel Phooko

Respondent

Innocent Mathonsi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Section 18(3) Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment delivered on 10 November 2023.
  2. 2 Whether the execution of the judgment should be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal in terms of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the execution of the judgment despite the pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants met the threshold for leave to appeal, as there is a reasonable prospect of success. However, regarding the section 18(3) application, the court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify the execution of the judgment pending appeal. The applicants have not served as directors since November 2022, and no prejudice would be suffered if execution is suspended. Conversely, the respondents and SAMIWA could be prejudiced if the appeal succeeds and the judgment is set aside. The court also considered the prospects of success in the appeal as relevant to the section 18(3) application and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted to the full court; the application to declare that execution of the order is not suspended is refused with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the full Court of this Division; costs will be costs in the appeal.
  • The application to declare that the execution of the order granted on 10 November 2023 is not suspended is refused with costs.