Madisha and Others v Mashawana (2020/21585) [2020] ZAGPPHC 592 (19 October 2020)

Madisha and Others v Mashawana (2020/21585) [2020] ZAGPPHC 592 (19 October 2020)

The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been dealt with in the original judgment. After considering the submissions and the grounds advanced, the court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal therefore does not meet the requirements of Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 592
Parties
Applicant: Puleng David Madisha; Applicant: Themba Mafinto Rikhotso; Applicant: Makgolokwane Civils CC; Respondent: Collen Tshifhiwa Mashawana
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Case Number
2020/21585
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mokose
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Superior Courts Act, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Superior Courts Act Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Puleng David Madisha

Applicant

Themba Mafinto Rikhotso

Applicant

Makgolokwane Civils CC

Applicant

Collen Tshifhiwa Mashawana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds raised in the application for leave to appeal justify granting leave.
  3. 3 Whether new points raised for the first time in the leave to appeal application should be considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been dealt with in the original judgment. After considering the submissions and the grounds advanced, the court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal therefore does not meet the requirements of Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.