Modupe v Legal Practice Council (2023/121159) [2024] ZAGPJHC 934 (20 September 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 934
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Sutherland, Modiba
- Case number
- 2023/121159
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Sutherland, Modiba
- Case number
- 2023/121159
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that none of the grounds of appeal relied on by the applicant would yield a different outcome in the contemplated appeal proceedings. After considering both written and oral submissions from the applicant and the respondent, the court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale, consistent with the punitive costs order made in the main application.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
02
Material facts
Parties
Modupe-Oluwa-Jack Modupe
Applicant Counsel: Modupe-Oluwa-Jack Modupe (in person)Legal Practice Council
Respondent Counsel: D Bekker, Fourie Fismer Incorporated03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application for Admission as Legal Practitioner.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 02
Whether the grounds of appeal are sufficient to warrant leave to appeal.
- 03
Whether costs should be awarded on the attorney and client scale.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the judgment and order of 27 August 2024 were incorrect and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. He relied on several grounds set out in his application for leave to appeal and made both written and oral submissions in support of his position.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by an attorney, opposed the application for leave to appeal, contending that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant would yield a different outcome and that the application should be dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with section 17(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal will only be granted if there are reasonable prospects that another court will come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that none of the grounds of appeal relied on by the applicant would yield a different outcome in the contemplated appeal proceedings. After considering both written and oral submissions from the applicant and the respondent, the court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale, consistent with the punitive costs order made in the main application.
Obiter and limits
- The Legal Practice Council should not be out of pocketed by this application, as previously stated in the impugned judgment.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
- The application is dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2023-121159
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO
20 September 2024
In the matter between:
In the application of:
MODUPE-OLUWA-JACK
MODUPE
APPLICANT and
LEGAL
PRACTICE COUNCIL
RESPONDENT
Coram: Sutherland DJP, Modiba J
Heard: 19 September 2024
Delivered: 20 September 2024 – This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives via email, by publication on the website of the Supreme Court of Appeal and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 11:00.
Summary: Application for leave to appeal - whether there are prospects of success - application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
MODIBA J (Sutherland DJP concurring)
[1] Relying on section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with section 17(2)(a)of the Superior Court’s Act,[1] Modupe-Oluwa-Jack Modupe as applicant in both the main application and this application, seeks leave to appeal this court’s
judgment and order of 27 August 2024, dismissing his application for admission as a legal practitioner with punitive costs. The Legal Practice Council (LPC) as the intervening party in the main application and a respondent in this application is opposing the application for leave to appeal.
[2] I have considered the grounds for appeal as set out in Mr Modupe’s application for leave to appeal, his written and oral submissions as well as oral submissions by the attorney for the LPC. I find that none of the grounds of appeal relied on by Mr Modupe will yield a different outcome in the contemplated appeal proceedings.
[3] In the premises, the application stands to be dismissed with costs. For the same reasons set out in the impugned judgment, the LPC should not be out pocketed by this application.
[4] I therefore make the following order:
Order
The application is dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
MODIBA J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
JOHANNESBURG
The Applicant: For the Respondent: Date of hearing: Date of judgment: Modupe-Oluwa-Jack Modupe (in person) D Bekker, Fourie Fismer Incorporated 19 September 2024 20 September 2024
Mode of delivery: This judgment is handed down virtually on the MS Teams platform and transmitted to the parties’ legal representatives by email, uploading on CaseLines and release to SAFLLI. The date and time for delivery is deemed to be 10 am.
[1] Act 10 of 2013
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.