Lebelo v First National Bank (Ex Tempore- Leave to Appeal) (143809/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 729 (21 July 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 729
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Wilson
- Case number
- 143809/2024
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- 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 does not constitute an appealable decision, as it does not finally dispose of the applicant's rights and does not cause irreparable harm. The applicant is not precluded from approaching the urgent court again with properly stated grounds for urgency. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed, and each party is ordered to pay their own costs.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
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 the order, arguing that she is prejudiced by not being able to proceed urgently.
- 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 on the urgent roll if urgency is properly established.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law principle; see also South African procedural authorities.
An order removing a matter from the urgent roll is generally not appealable unless irreparable harm is demonstrated.
- 02
Wilson J, judgment of 20 May 2025
The purpose of removing a matter from the roll is to allow the applicant to approach the urgent court again with proper grounds for urgency.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the order removing the application from the urgent roll does not constitute an appealable decision, as it does not finally dispose of the applicant's rights and does not cause irreparable harm. The applicant is not precluded from approaching the urgent court again with properly stated grounds for urgency. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed, and each party is ordered to pay their own costs.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the applicant could have simply re-enrolled the matter on the urgent roll with proper grounds, rather than seeking leave to appeal.
- The judge expressed uncertainty as to why the applicant chose to pursue an appeal rather than follow the ordinary procedure.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- Each party will pay their own costs.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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 Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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
SIGNATURE
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.