Moto Health Care Medical Scheme v Muller N.O and Others (18152/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 298 (8 March 2016)
The court found that the 3rd and 4th respondents had demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that the issues raised warranted consideration by the Full Bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the 3rd and 4th respondents. The court further...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZAGPPHC 298
- Parties
- Applicant: Moto Health Care Medical Scheme; Respondent: Johannes Zacharias Human Muller N.O; Respondent: Michael Mmathomo Masilo N.O; Respondent: HMI Healthcare Corporation (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Agility Global Health Solutions - Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Medshield Medical Scheme; Respondent: Master of the High Court
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 18152/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the 3rd and 4th respondents; costs of the application to be costs in the appeal, including costs of two counsel.
- Judges
- C Pretorius
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs in the Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Moto Health Care Medical Scheme
Applicant
Johannes Zacharias Human Muller N.O
Respondent
Michael Mmathomo Masilo N.O
Respondent
HMI Healthcare Corporation (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Agility Global Health Solutions - Africa (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Medshield Medical Scheme
Respondent
Master of the High Court
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the 3rd and 4th respondents to the Full Bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court.
- 2 Whether costs of the application should be costs in the appeal, including the cost occasioned by the use of two counsel.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 3rd and 4th respondents had demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that the issues raised warranted consideration by the Full Bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the 3rd and 4th respondents. The court further ordered that the costs of the application, including the costs occasioned by the use of two counsel, should be costs in the appeal, reflecting the complexity and importance of the matter.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the 3rd and 4th respondents; costs of the application to be costs in the appeal, including costs of two counsel.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the 3rd and 4th Respondents to the Full Bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court.
- Costs of this application to be costs in the appeal, including the cost occasioned by the use of two counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case number: 18152/2013
DATE: 08 MARCH 2016
In the matter between:
MOTO HEALTH CARE MEDICAL SCHEME.............................................................APPLICANT
And
JOHANNES ZACHARIAS HUMAN MULLER N.O.........................................1ST RESPONDENT
MICHAEL MMATHOMO MASILO N.O..........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
HMI HEALTHCARE CORPORATION (PTY) LTD........................................3RD RESPONDENT
AGILITY GLOBAL HEALTH SOLUTIONS - AFRICA (PTY) LTD.............4TH RESPONDENT
MEDSHIELD MEDICAL SCHEME...................................................................5TH RESPONDENT
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT......................................................................6TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
PRETORIUS J.
1. This application was heard on 5 August 2015 and the judgment was handed down on 4 September 2015. Unfortunately, due to the no availability of senior counsel and myself being on circuit for seven weeks, this application for leave to appeal is only heard on 7 March 2016.
2. Having heard argument by counsel I make the following order:
1. Leave to appeal is granted to the 3rd and 4th Respondents to the Full Bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court;
2. Costs of this application to be costs in the appeal, including the cost occasioned by the use of two counsel.
JUDGE C Pretorius
Case number : 18152/2013
Application for leave to appeal
heard on : 7 March 2016
For the Applicant : Adv KW LQderitz SC; Adv TD Prinsloo
Instructed by : Barnard Incorporated
For the Respondent : Adv J J Brett SC; Adv E Kromhout
Instructed by : Gildenhuys Malatji Incorporated
Date of Judgment : 8 March 2016