Masehla v Ganca and Another (2019-40372) [2024] ZAGPJHC 167 (22 February 2024)

Masehla v Ganca and Another (2019-40372) [2024] ZAGPJHC 167 (22 February 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the default and the delay in filing a plea. The chronology of events demonstrated that the applicant did not act promptly to remove the bar, despite opportunities to do so. The interests of justice require that litigation be concluded and not delayed indefinitely. Applying the principles of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act and the relevant case law, the court was satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 167
Parties
Applicant: Masehla, Tebogo Mathibeng; Respondent: Ganca, Nolusiba; Respondent: Ganca, Simo-Sihle
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2024
Case Number
2019/40372
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Refusing Upliftment of Bar
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Upliftment of Bar, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Default Judgment, Good Cause Requirement
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Upliftment of Bar Reasonable Prospects of Success Default Judgment Good Cause Requirement

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masehla, Tebogo Mathibeng

Applicant

Ganca, Nolusiba

Respondent

Ganca, Simo-Sihle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Refusing Upliftment of Bar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the refusal to uplift the bar.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the default and delay in filing a plea.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act for granting leave to appeal are satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the default and the delay in filing a plea. The chronology of events demonstrated that the applicant did not act promptly to remove the bar, despite opportunities to do so. The interests of justice require that litigation be concluded and not delayed indefinitely. Applying the principles of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act and the relevant case law, the court was satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.