Maharaj and Others v M and G Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others (37510/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 638 (26 July 2016)

Maharaj and Others v M and G Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others (37510/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 638 (26 July 2016)

The court found that the first and second applicants had filed their application for leave to appeal within the prescribed time limits, while the third applicant filed late and required condonation. The reasons advanced for leave to appeal were considered sufficient to establish a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the respondents' possession of investigation documents. Consequently, condonation for the late filing by the third applicant was granted, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted to all applicants. The court ordered that the costs of the condonation application be paid by the third applicant, with all other...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 638
Parties
Applicant: Sathyandranath Ragunanan Maharaj; Applicant: Zarina Carrim Maharaj; Applicant: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: M and G Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC; Respondent: M and G Media Limited; Respondent: Stephen Patrick "Sam" Sole
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2016
Case Number
37510/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal granted to all applicants; condonation for late filing granted to the third applicant; costs of condonation application to be paid by the third applicant; other costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sathyandranath Ragunanan Maharaj

Applicant

Zarina Carrim Maharaj

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant

M and G Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC

Respondent

M and G Media Limited

Respondent

Stephen Patrick "Sam" Sole

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal by the third applicant.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal should be granted to the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the third applicant for the condonation application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first and second applicants had filed their application for leave to appeal within the prescribed time limits, while the third applicant filed late and required condonation. The reasons advanced for leave to appeal were considered sufficient to establish a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the respondents' possession of investigation documents. Consequently, condonation for the late filing by the third applicant was granted, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted to all applicants. The court ordered that the costs of the condonation application be paid by the third applicant, with all other...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal granted to all applicants; condonation for late filing granted to the third applicant; costs of condonation application to be paid by the third applicant; other costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
  • Cost of the condonation application to be paid by the third applicant, the National Director of Public Prosecutions.