Lebelo v First National Bank (Leave to Appeal) (143809/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 728 (21 July 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 728
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Wilson
- Case number
- 143809/2024
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Wilson
- Case number
- 143809/2024
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the order removing the application from the urgent roll was not appealable because it did not cause irreparable harm to the applicant. The applicant was free to approach the urgent court again with proper grounds for urgency. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, as the requirements for appealability were not met.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- Each party will pay their own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Lenah Motlahabo Lebelo
ApplicantFirst National Bank
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Removal From Urgent Roll
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an order removing a matter from the urgent roll is appealable.
- 02
Whether the applicant has established irreparable harm justifying leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the removal of her urgent application from the roll was incorrect and seeks leave to appeal, arguing that the order adversely affects her ability to obtain urgent relief.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintains that the order is not appealable and that the applicant has not demonstrated any irreparable harm. The respondent submits that the applicant may re-enroll the matter if urgency can be established.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
South African civil procedure principles
An order removing a matter from the urgent roll is generally not appealable unless irreparable harm is established.
- 02
Uniform Rules of Court
Applicants must state clear grounds for urgency when approaching the urgent court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the order removing the application from the urgent roll was not appealable because it did not cause irreparable harm to the applicant. The applicant was free to approach the urgent court again with proper grounds for urgency. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, as the requirements for appealability were not met.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant's decision to seek leave to appeal rather than re-enroll the matter on proper grounds was not understood by the court.
- The court reiterated that parties must comply with procedural requirements for urgency to obtain relief from the urgent court.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- Each party will pay their own costs.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
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.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 143809/2024
DATE: 21-07-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE 21 July 2025
In the matter between
LENAH
MOTLAHABO LEBELO
Applicant
and
FIRST NATIONAL
BANK
Respondent
JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE
LEAVE TO APPEAL
WILSON, J: The applicant, Ms Lebelo, seeks leave to appeal against my decision of 20 May 2025, removing her urgent application from the roll and directing each party to pay their own costs.
An order removing a matter from the urgent roll is not appealable unless the applicant can establish irreparable harm of the nature that an appeal could remedy.
In this case there is no such harm because the purpose of my order removing the application from the roll, as I explained in my judgment, was to allow Ms Lebelo to approach the urgent court again having stated the grounds on which she claims urgency.
Instead of doing that, for reasons that I do not fully understand, Ms Lebelo has sought leave to appeal my order. For the reasons I have given, the application for leave to appeal to cannot succeed. I make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. Each party will pay their own costs.
WILSON, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
21 July 2025
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.