Mashile v Daniel Exclusive Fashion (Pty) Ltd (116568/24) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1150 (8 October 2024)

Mashile v Daniel Exclusive Fashion (Pty) Ltd (116568/24) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1150 (8 October 2024)

The court found that the Applicant misunderstood the procedural requirements for applications for leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal must be heard by the trial Judge, and the Respondent was entitled to oppose without filing a formal notice of opposition. The Applicant's reliance on Rule 6(5)(d)(ii) was misplaced, as it does not apply to applications for leave to appeal. There is no legal basis or procedure for the declaratory relief sought by the Applicant. The only remedy available after refusal of leave to appeal is to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1150
Parties
Applicant: Emmanuel Makalela Mashile; Respondent: Daniel Exclusive Fashion (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 October 2024
Case Number
116568/24
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
BC Wanless
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Uniform Rules of Court, Costs Award, Superior Courts Act, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Uniform Rules of Court Costs Award Superior Courts Act Declaratory Relief

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Makalela Mashile

Applicant

Daniel Exclusive Fashion (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of leave to appeal by Joseph AJ was invalid, unlawful, and unconstitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent was entitled to oppose the application for leave to appeal without filing a notice of intention to oppose.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant followed the correct procedure in enrolling the application for leave to appeal on the unopposed motion roll.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant misunderstood the procedural requirements for applications for leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal must be heard by the trial Judge, and the Respondent was entitled to oppose without filing a formal notice of opposition. The Applicant's reliance on Rule 6(5)(d)(ii) was misplaced, as it does not apply to applications for leave to appeal. There is no legal basis or procedure for the declaratory relief sought by the Applicant. The only remedy available after refusal of leave to appeal is to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is to pay the costs of the application under case number 2023/116568.