Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit v Van der Vyver (7875/2008) [2011] ZAWCHC 431 (15 September 2011)

Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit v Van der Vyver (7875/2008) [2011] ZAWCHC 431 (15 September 2011)

After considering the arguments presented, the court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were not new and had already been dealt with in the previous judgment. The court was satisfied that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the liability for malicious prosecution. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 431
Parties
Applicant: Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit; Respondent: Frederick Barend van der Vyver
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2011
Case Number
7875/2008
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Veldhuizen R
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Malicious Prosecution, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Malicious Prosecution Costs Award

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit

Applicant

Frederick Barend van der Vyver

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the liability for malicious prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown grounds justifying leave to appeal against the previous judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

After considering the arguments presented, the court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were not new and had already been dealt with in the previous judgment. The court was satisfied that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the liability for malicious prosecution. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The costs order includes the costs of two counsel.