Mofokeng v Free State Gambling, Liqour and Tourism Authority (540/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 68 (2 February 2022)

Mofokeng v Free State Gambling, Liqour and Tourism Authority (540/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 68 (2 February 2022)

After considering the papers, the judgment of Parks AJ, the grounds for leave to appeal, and the submissions of the parties, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The threshold set by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act was not met, as there was no sound, rational basis to conclude that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the issues of jurisdiction and salary deductions. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 68
Parties
Applicant: Majoro Marvin Mofokeng; Respondent: The Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2022
Case Number
540/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Reinders
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Salary Deductions
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction Salary Deductions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Majoro Marvin Mofokeng

Applicant

The Free State Gambling, Liquor and Tourism Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding jurisdiction and salary deductions.
  3. 3 Whether there are compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

After considering the papers, the judgment of Parks AJ, the grounds for leave to appeal, and the submissions of the parties, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The threshold set by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act was not met, as there was no sound, rational basis to conclude that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the issues of jurisdiction and salary deductions. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.