Mvoko v South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd (25604/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 270 (8 September 2016)

Mvoko v South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd (25604/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 270 (8 September 2016)

The court found that the grounds advanced by the applicant for leave to appeal were based on a misreading of the judgment and a misconception of the issues. The relief granted in the main application was premised on the contractual relationship between the parties and aimed at finality. The court was not convinced that another court would reasonably reach a different conclusion. Consequently, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and leave to appeal was refused. Costs were awarded against the applicant, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 270
Parties
Applicant: Vuyo Mvoko; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2016
Case Number
25604/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Main Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Contractual Relief
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Contractual Relief

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vuyo Mvoko

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits of the main application.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds advanced by the applicant for leave to appeal were based on a misreading of the judgment and a misconception of the issues. The relief granted in the main application was premised on the contractual relationship between the parties and aimed at finality. The court was not convinced that another court would reasonably reach a different conclusion. Consequently, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and leave to appeal was refused. Costs were awarded against the applicant, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal, including the costs of two counsel.