Lukhele v Letsoalo and Another (58803/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 834 (28 October 2022)

Lukhele v Letsoalo and Another (58803/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 834 (28 October 2022)

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal raised by the Respondents were not persuasive and did not introduce any new arguments beyond those already considered in the original judgment. The court was satisfied that the Respondents' absence from the hearing was not reasonable and that the legal principles cited were correctly applied. The facts upon which the judgment was made were clear from the record and duly considered. After careful evaluation, the court was not convinced that another court would reach a different conclusion on law or fact, nor that there were reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 834
Parties
Applicant: Mothusi Lukhele; Respondent: Collins Letsoalo; Respondent: The Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Case Number
58803/21
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 1 August 2022.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including cost of counsel.
Judges
Ceylon
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Costs Award, Condonation, Rule 6 12 C
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Costs Award Condonation Rule 6 12 C

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mothusi Lukhele

Applicant

Collins Letsoalo

Respondent

The Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 1 August 2022.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal satisfies the requirements of section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents' absence from the hearing was reasonable and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal raised by the Respondents were not persuasive and did not introduce any new arguments beyond those already considered in the original judgment. The court was satisfied that the Respondents' absence from the hearing was not reasonable and that the legal principles cited were correctly applied. The facts upon which the judgment was made were clear from the record and duly considered. After careful evaluation, the court was not convinced that another court would reach a different conclusion on law or fact, nor that there were reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including cost of counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including cost of counsel.