Motseo and Another v Monama N.O and Others (Leave to Appeal) (38707/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1124 (8 November 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1124
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- S Baqwa
- Case number
- 38707/2020
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- S Baqwa
- Case number
- 38707/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, after considering all submissions and the grounds advanced, the applicants have satisfied the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act regarding prospects of success on appeal. The judge was satisfied that another court may reasonably come to a different conclusion and therefore granted leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full court of the Gauteng Division.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the full court of the Gauteng Division.
- Costs are costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
AB Stephen Phetedi Motseo
Applicant Counsel: Adv J DelportRossie Thlaishego Motseo
Applicant Counsel: Adv J DelportLucy Makhada Monama N.O.
Respondent Counsel: Adv RS MafuyekaLucy Makhada Monama
Respondent Counsel: Adv RS MafuyekaNedbank Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv RS MafuyekaRegistrar of Deeds
Respondent Counsel: Adv RS MafuyekaCity of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent Counsel: Adv RS Mafuyeka03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 02
Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the judgment delivered on 27 May 2024 contains errors of law and fact, and that there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion. They submitted that the grounds for appeal are substantial and warrant consideration by the full court.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the judgment was correct in both law and fact, and that the applicants have not demonstrated any reasonable prospects of success. They argued that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed as it does not meet the threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act
Leave to appeal may only be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, after considering all submissions and the grounds advanced, the applicants have satisfied the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act regarding prospects of success on appeal. The judge was satisfied that another court may reasonably come to a different conclusion and therefore granted leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division.
Obiter and limits
- Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full court of the Gauteng Division.
- Leave to appeal is granted to the full court of the Gauteng Division.
- Costs are costs in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE Number: 38707/2020
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
2024
In the matters between: -
AB
STEPHEN PHETEDI
MOTSEO
FIRST APPLICANT
ROSSIE
THLAISHEGO MOTSEO
SECOND APPLICANT
and
LUCY MAKHADA MONAMA N.O.
FIRST
RESPONDENT
LUCY
MAKHADA MONAMA
SECOND RESPONDENT
NEDBANK
LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT
REGISTRAR
OF DEEDS
FOURTH RESPONDENT
CITY
OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT (APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
BAQWA, J
Introduction
[1] The applicants seek leave to appeal against the judgment of this court handed down on 27 May 2024.
[2] The grounds for leave to appeal have been fully ventilated in both parties heads of argument.
[3] Section 17 (1) of The Superior Courts Act (“the Act”) provides that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that;
“(a) ………………….
(i) The appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) These is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.”
[4] After considering all the submissions, I am satisfied that the applicants have satisfied the requirements of section 17 (1) (a) of the Act regarding the prospects of success on appeal.
[5] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is granted to the full court of appeal of the Gauteng Division. Costs are costs in the appeal.
SELBY BAQWA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Date of hearing: 08 November 2024
Date of judgment: 08 November 2024
Appearance
On behalf of the Applicants Adv J Delport delport@clubadvocates.co.za On behalf of the Respondents Adv RS Mafuyeka sipho@mafuyeka.co.za
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.