Mkhwanazi-Sigege and Another v Mottee and Others; Mkhwanazi obo Mkhwanazi and Another v Mottee and Others (64484/2020;10475/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 830 (13 December 2021)

Mkhwanazi-Sigege and Another v Mottee and Others; Mkhwanazi obo Mkhwanazi and Another v Mottee and Others (64484/2020;10475/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 830 (13 December 2021)

The court considered the written heads of argument and submissions by both parties. Applying the principles in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act and relevant case law, the court found that the applicants had demonstrated a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of their consolidated urgent application. The threshold for granting leave to appeal was met, and leave to appeal was accordingly granted to the Full Court of the Division, with costs in the appeal, including costs of counsel.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 830
Parties
Applicant: S N N Mkhwanazi-Sigege; Applicant: B C Mkhwanazi; Applicant: Bongekile Cynthia Mkhwanazi obo Xolani Siviwe Mkhwanazi; Applicant: Bongekile Cynthia Mkhwanazi obo Nhlakanipho Okuhle Manqele N.O.; Respondent: Peter Le Mottée; Respondent: Lloyd Robert Ball; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Pretoria; Respondent: Mercia Khanyile Ngema; Respondent: Mbali Ngema; Respondent: Nhlanhla Ngema
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2021
Case Number
64484/2020;10475/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order Dated 21 September 2021
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of this Division, with costs in the appeal, including costs of counsel.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Costs Order, Urgent Application, Consolidation of Applications
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Costs Order Urgent Application Consolidation of Applications

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S N N Mkhwanazi-Sigege

Applicant

B C Mkhwanazi

Applicant

Bongekile Cynthia Mkhwanazi obo Xolani Siviwe Mkhwanazi

Applicant

Bongekile Cynthia Mkhwanazi obo Nhlakanipho Okuhle Manqele N.O.

Applicant

Peter Le Mottée

Respondent

Lloyd Robert Ball

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Mercia Khanyile Ngema

Respondent

Mbali Ngema

Respondent

Nhlanhla Ngema

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order Dated 21 September 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in terms of section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the threshold for granting leave to appeal has been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court considered the written heads of argument and submissions by both parties. Applying the principles in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act and relevant case law, the court found that the applicants had demonstrated a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of their consolidated urgent application. The threshold for granting leave to appeal was met, and leave to appeal was accordingly granted to the Full Court of the Division, with costs in the appeal, including costs of counsel.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of this Division, with costs in the appeal, including costs of counsel.

Orders

  • The application is granted leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division.
  • Costs in the appeal, including costs of counsel, are awarded.