Matamela v Mulaudzi (475/2021) [2022] ZASCA 71 (23 May 2022)

Matamela v Mulaudzi (475/2021) [2022] ZASCA 71 (23 May 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because special leave to appeal had not been granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal itself, as required by section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The high court, sitting as an appeal court, did not have the authority to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Consequently, the order granting leave to appeal was a nullity, and the appeal was not properly before the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appeal was therefore struck from the roll with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 71
Parties
Appellant: Tshioma Matamela; Respondent: David Masilo Mulaudzi
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2022
Case Number
475/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal; Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
Zondi, Carelse, Hughes, Tsoka, Savage
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Appeal, Special Leave Requirement, Eviction Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Appeal Special Leave Requirement Eviction 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshioma Matamela

Appellant

David Masilo Mulaudzi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal; Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Supreme Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal where leave was granted by the high court sitting as an appeal court, rather than by the Supreme Court of Appeal itself?
  2. 2 Is special leave from the Supreme Court of Appeal required for appeals from decisions of a high court sitting as an appeal court?
  3. 3 Was the order granting leave to appeal by the high court valid?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because special leave to appeal had not been granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal itself, as required by section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The high court, sitting as an appeal court, did not have the authority to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Consequently, the order granting leave to appeal was a nullity, and the appeal was not properly before the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appeal was therefore struck from the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll with costs.