Moodley v Chairperson of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Another (23159/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 417 (10 October 2019)
The court found that the first respondent failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds for appeal and the submissions of counsel, the judge stood by the original reasons for judgment, concluding that there were no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] ZAGPJHC 417
- Parties
- Applicant: Kubentheran Moodley; Respondent: Chairperson of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State; Respondent: Knox Titanium Vault Company (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 23159/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Setting Aside Summons
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- L T Modiba
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Interpretation of Statutes, Costs Award, Commission Inquiry Regulations
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kubentheran Moodley
Applicant
Chairperson of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State
Respondent
Knox Titanium Vault Company (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Setting Aside Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first respondent has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment setting aside the summons.
- 2 Whether the interpretation of sections 3(1) and (2) of the Commission's Act and Regulations 4(1) and (2) of the Commission's Regulations was correct.
- 3 Whether the costs order granted to the applicant was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the first respondent failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds for appeal and the submissions of counsel, the judge stood by the original reasons for judgment, concluding that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would interpret the relevant statutory provisions or the costs order differently. 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 23159/2019
In the matter between:
KUBENTHERAN MOODLEY
Applicant
And
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO
ALLEGATIONS OF STATE CAPTURE,
CORRUPTION AND FRAUD IN THE
PUBLIC SECTOR INCLUDING ORGANS
OF STATE
First Respondent
and
KNOX TITANIUM VAULT COMPANY (PTY) LTD
Second Respondent
J U D G M E N T IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST RESONDENT’S
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MODIBA, J:
[1] This is an opposed application for leave to appeal the judgment and order I handed down on 21 August 2019, upholding the applicant’s
application to set aside the summons the first respondent issued on 24 June 2019 (“the setting aside application”).
[2] For convenience, I use the parties’ citation in the setting aside application.
[3] The first respondent relies on section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. It provides:
“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that-
(a)(i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success;”
[4] The first respondent has set out his grounds of appeal in detail. Their gravamen is that I erred in the interpretation I accorded to sections 3(1) and (2) of the Commission’s Act[1] and Regulations 4(1) and (2) of the Commission’s Regulations and in awarding costs to the applicant.[2] He contends that there are reasonable prospects that another court would construe these provisions differently, as well as return a different order in respect of costs. Only Mr. Moodley opposes the application. He contends that there are no prospects that another
court would come to a different conclusion on these issues.
[6] I have considered the grounds for appeal as set out in the first respondent’s notice of appeal as well as submissions by counsel for the parties. I stand by my reasons for judgment as set out in the judgment handed down in this matter.
[8] I find that the first respondent fails to meet the threshold referred to above.
[9] In the premises, the application stands to be dismissed with costs.
[10] I therefore make the following order:
ORDER
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
______________________________
MADAM JUSTICE L T MODIBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
APPEARENCES:
Counsel for Applicant: Advocate M Hellens SC
Attorney for Applicant: Peyper Attorneys
Counsel for First Respondents: Advocate V Ngalwana SC
Attorney for First Respondents: Shandu Attorneys
Date heard: 20 September 2019
Date of judgment: 10 October 2019
[1] Act 8 of 1947.
[2] The Regulations of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector
including Organs of State, published in the Government Gazette of 9 February 2018 as a Schedule to Government Notice 105.