Matsetela v Mashaba (15493/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 290 (22 March 2024)

Matsetela v Mashaba (15493/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 290 (22 March 2024)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was fundamentally flawed. There was only one application before the court, not two, as the original application was amended to seek the appointment of an interim curator personae. The urgency and factual basis for relief were contained in the papers before the court. The relief sought on appeal would have no practical effect other than to impose an adverse cost order on Dr Mashaba. No exceptional circumstances were advanced to justify granting leave to appeal. The matter falls squarely within Section 16(2) and Section 17(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act, which preclude leave to appeal where the decision will have no practical...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 290
Parties
Applicant: Adv M D Matsetela; Respondent: Evah Malebo Mashaba; Applicant: Ben Mbalane Mashaba; Respondent: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Case Number
15493/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interim Curator Personae Appointment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Labuschagne AJ
Legal Topics
Curatorship, Interim Relief, Leave to Appeal, Urgent Application
Civil Procedure Family and Children Curatorship Interim Relief Leave to Appeal Urgent Application

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adv M D Matsetela

Applicant

Evah Malebo Mashaba

Respondent

Ben Mbalane Mashaba

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interim Curator Personae Appointment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal against the order appointing an interim curator personae should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the original application constituted two separate applications or a single amended application.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought on appeal would have any practical effect other than costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was fundamentally flawed. There was only one application before the court, not two, as the original application was amended to seek the appointment of an interim curator personae. The urgency and factual basis for relief were contained in the papers before the court. The relief sought on appeal would have no practical effect other than to impose an adverse cost order on Dr Mashaba. No exceptional circumstances were advanced to justify granting leave to appeal. The matter falls squarely within Section 16(2) and Section 17(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act, which preclude leave to appeal where the decision will have no practical...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.