Moela and Another v Vice Chancellor: University of the Witwatersdand and Others (3399/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 161 (22 March 2022)

Moela and Another v Vice Chancellor: University of the Witwatersdand and Others (3399/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 161 (22 March 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any compelling reasons for leave to appeal as required by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds advanced, including alleged misdirections and conflicting judgments, were considered and rejected. The court held that its previous judgment was comprehensive and correct, and that no rational basis existed for another court to reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 161
Parties
Applicant: A Lerato Moela; Applicant: Lehlohonolo Peega; Respondent: Vice Chancellor: University of the Witwatersdand; Respondent: Director of Residence Life: University of the Witwatersdand; Respondent: Acting Cluster Manager, West Campus: University of the Witwatersdand; Respondent: Director of Protection Services: University of the Witwatersdand; Respondent: Dean of Students: University of the Witwatersdand
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Case Number
3399/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
EF Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Spoliation, Declaratory Relief, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Spoliation Declaratory Relief 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Lerato Moela

Applicant

Lehlohonolo Peega

Applicant

Vice Chancellor: University of the Witwatersdand

Respondent

Director of Residence Life: University of the Witwatersdand

Respondent

Acting Cluster Manager, West Campus: University of the Witwatersdand

Respondent

Director of Protection Services: University of the Witwatersdand

Respondent

Dean of Students: University of the Witwatersdand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of the urgent application for declaratory and spoliatory relief.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal as envisaged by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the court misdirected itself regarding the effect of Adv Lennox's ruling and the interpretation of accommodation rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any compelling reasons for leave to appeal as required by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds advanced, including alleged misdirections and conflicting judgments, were considered and rejected. The court held that its previous judgment was comprehensive and correct, and that no rational basis existed for another court to reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants, 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, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.