Matsepe and Another v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC11/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 998 (30 September 2024)

Matsepe and Another v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC11/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 998 (30 September 2024)

The Court found that the applicants failed to meet the stringent threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The application related to an interlocutory order, and granting leave would result in piecemeal adjudication and unnecessary delays, contrary to the interests of justice. The applicants did not demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor did they show that their right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the refusal to grant further particulars. The Court was not persuaded that any compelling reason existed to justify granting leave to appeal.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 998
Parties
Applicant: Kabelo John Matsepe; Applicant: Mamphe Daniel Msiza; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Case Number
CC11/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment Refusing Further Particulars
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Mabuse
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Interlocutory Orders, Right to Fair Trial, Further and Better Particulars
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Interlocutory Orders Right to Fair Trial Further and Better Particulars

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabelo John Matsepe

Applicant

Mamphe Daniel Msiza

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment Refusing Further Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to grant further and better particulars prejudiced the applicants' right to a fair trial.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal is premature as it relates to an interlocutory order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to meet the stringent threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The application related to an interlocutory order, and granting leave would result in piecemeal adjudication and unnecessary delays, contrary to the interests of justice. The applicants did not demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor did they show that their right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the refusal to grant further particulars. The Court was not persuaded that any compelling reason existed to justify granting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The applications for leave to appeal are refused.