Mangolela v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 319; 91612/2019 (28 March 2023)

Mangolela v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 319; 91612/2019 (28 March 2023)

The court found that the grounds of appeal did not satisfy the threshold for granting leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act. There was no compelling reason presented to justify the hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court further held that there was no reason to deviate from the customary costs order in matters involving the Legal Practice Council, and awarded costs on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 319
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Mangolela; Respondent: The South African Legal Practice Council
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Case Number
91612/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Dated 23 November 2022.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
K Mogale, N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Reasonable Prospect of Success

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Mangolela

Applicant

The South African Legal Practice Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Dated 23 November 2022.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grounds of appeal satisfy the threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii).
  2. 2 Whether there exists a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on an attorney and client scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds of appeal did not satisfy the threshold for granting leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act. There was no compelling reason presented to justify the hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court further held that there was no reason to deviate from the customary costs order in matters involving the Legal Practice Council, and awarded costs on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.