Ncongwane and Another v South African Legal Practice Council and Others (Leave to Appeal) (3448/217) [2024] ZAGPPHC 732 (31 July 2024)

Ncongwane and Another v South African Legal Practice Council and Others (Leave to Appeal) (3448/217) [2024] ZAGPPHC 732 (31 July 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The judge was not persuaded that there was a reasonable prospect of success or a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, as no conflicting judgments were cited and the facts were sui generis. The order of 4 June 2024 was correctly found to be interlocutory and not final in effect. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants on an attorney and client scale, as the Legal Practice Council respondents acted as guardians of the profession and should not be left out of pocket...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 732
Parties
Applicant: Mandla Macbeth Ncongwane; Applicant: Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated; Respondent: South African Legal Practice Council; Respondent: Gauteng Legal Practice Council; Respondent: Mpumalanga Legal Practice Council; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Case Number
3448/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application for Declaratory Relief.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Costs Awards, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Costs Awards Declaratory 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandla Macbeth Ncongwane

Applicant

Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated

Applicant

South African Legal Practice Council

Respondent

Gauteng Legal Practice Council

Respondent

Mpumalanga Legal Practice Council

Respondent

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application for Declaratory Relief.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the jurisdictional requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the order granted on 4 June 2024 is interlocutory or final in effect.
  3. 3 Whether a compelling reason exists for granting leave to appeal to obtain legal certainty.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The judge was not persuaded that there was a reasonable prospect of success or a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, as no conflicting judgments were cited and the facts were sui generis. The order of 4 June 2024 was correctly found to be interlocutory and not final in effect. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants on an attorney and client scale, as the Legal Practice Council respondents acted as guardians of the profession and should not be left out of pocket...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The first and second applicants’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, are liable for the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale.