National Empowerment Fund v Zilwa (A5036/17) [2019] ZAGPJHC 112 (29 March 2019)

National Empowerment Fund v Zilwa (A5036/17) [2019] ZAGPJHC 112 (29 March 2019)

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal because the judgment in question fell within section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act, requiring special leave from the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application was also brought outside the prescribed time period set by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 112
Parties
Applicant: National Empowerment Fund; Respondent: Sivuyile Sandile Zilwa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Case Number
A5036/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rule 30/30 a Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
L Modiba, A Crutchfield
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of High Court, Rule 30 Application, Rule 30a Application, Appealability of Orders
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction of High Court Rule 30 Application Rule 30a Application Appealability of Orders

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Empowerment Fund

Applicant

Sivuyile Sandile Zilwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rule 30/30 a Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal was brought within the prescribed time period.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment and order sought to be appealed are appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal because the judgment in question fell within section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act, requiring special leave from the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application was also brought outside the prescribed time period set by rule 49(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Furthermore, the judgment and order sought to be appealed were not appealable as they did not dispose of the issues in the appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale, in accordance with the contractual agreement between the parties.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.