Louwen v MEC For The Department of Health Gauteng (35801/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 840 (19 October 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPPHC 840
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Francis-Subbiah
- Case number
- 35801/19
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Francis-Subbiah
- Case number
- 35801/19
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, upon consideration of the papers and arguments presented, there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits of the case. The issues raised by the applicant in the leave to appeal application were considered in depth during the trial and judgment. The court concluded that leave to appeal should be granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division, and that the costs of the application should be costs in the appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division is granted. Costs of the application are to be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division is hereby granted.
- The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nhlabathi Samukelisiwe Louwen
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv NGD Maritz SCMEC For The Department of Health Gauteng
Defendant Counsel: Adv N Manaka03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits of the case.
- 02
Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division.
- 03
Who should bear the costs of the application for leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant/defendant argued that the judgment delivered on 22 July 2022 was erroneous and that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion. The applicant submitted that the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal were substantial and warranted reconsideration by a higher court.
- Respondent
- The respondent/plaintiff opposed the application, contending that the trial court had not erred in its findings and that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion. The respondent maintained that the judgment was correct and should stand.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should be granted if there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, upon consideration of the papers and arguments presented, there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits of the case. The issues raised by the applicant in the leave to appeal application were considered in depth during the trial and judgment. The court concluded that leave to appeal should be granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division, and that the costs of the application should be costs in the appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that many of the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been dealt with in depth in the original judgment.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division is granted. Costs of the application are to be costs in the appeal.
- Leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division is hereby granted.
- The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.
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
Order
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No 35801/19
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED
19 OCTOBER 2022
In the matter between:
NHLABATHI
SAMUKELISIWE
LOUWEN PLAINTIFF
and
MEC
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
GAUTENG DEFENDANT
LEAVE
TO APPEAL
FRANCIS-SUBBIAH, AJ:
[1] The applicant/defendant seeks leave to appeal against the entire judgment and order delivered on 22 July 2022 in this matter.
[2] The respondent/plaintiff opposes the application for leave to appeal.
[3] In considering a leave to appeal there must be reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.
[4] The respondent opposed this application on the basis that I had not erred in the findings and that there are no prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.
[5] Having read the papers and having heard counsel I had considered the issues raised by the applicant in this leave to appeal in coming to a decision on the trial matter. I have dealt in depth with many of the issues raised in the application in my judgment.
[6] I am of the view that there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion. Leave to appeal should therefore be granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division.
[7] Accordingly the following order is made:
7.1 Leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division is hereby granted.
7.2 The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.
FRANCIS-SUBBIAH,
AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION
PRETORIA
Counsel for the Applican/Defendant: Adv N Manaka
Instructed by:
State
Attorney
Counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff: Adv
NGD Maritz SC
Instructed by:
Joseph's
Inc
Date of Hearing: 13
October 2022
Date of Judgment: 19
October 2022
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.