Ndobela v Community Schemes Ombud Service and Another (Leave to Appeal) (060240/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 80 (5 February 2025)
The court found that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, as required by section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's reliance on constitutional issues and broader interests of justice was misplaced, as section 167(3)(ii) of the Constitution...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 80
- Parties
- Applicant: Rhulani Horward Ndobela; Respondent: Community Schemes Ombud Service; Respondent: Midstream Ridge Home Owners Association NPC
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 060240/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
- Judges
- R Tolmay
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Punitive Costs, Abuse of Process
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rhulani Horward Ndobela
Applicant
Community Schemes Ombud Service
Respondent
Midstream Ridge Home Owners Association NPC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on appeal.
- 2 Whether constitutional issues or broader interests of justice justify granting leave to appeal.
- 3 Whether the punitive costs order should be subject to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, as required by section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's reliance on constitutional issues and broader interests of justice was misplaced, as section 167(3)(ii) of the Constitution does not apply to this court. The dispute is limited to the parties and does not raise important or complex legal issues of broader relevance. The punitive costs order was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, and there is no reasonable prospect that another court would interfere with that discretion. The application for leave to appeal does not constitute an abuse of process,...
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 060240/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED:
DATE: 5/2/25
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
RHULANI HORWARD NDOBELA
Applicant
and
COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE
First Respondent
MIDSTREAM RIDGE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION NPC Second Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
TOLMAY J
1. After hearing argument, considering the heads of argument and my judgment I am of the view that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to another conclusion as envisaged on section 17 (1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act, for the reasons set out in my judgment.
2. The applicant also argued that it will be in the interests of justice to grant leave as the matter raises constitutional issues and it is “in the broader interests of justice” to grant leave to appeal. This seems to be a reference to section 167 (3)(ii) of the Constitution. This section deals with the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to grant leave to appeal. This section does not find application here. However, the argument may be interpreted to mean that there are compelling reasons to grant leave. No compelling reasons, however, exist why leave should be granted, as the dispute is limited to the interests of the parties before Court and does not have any broader relevance or impact, nor does it deal with important and complex legal issues.
3. The applicant furthermore seeks leave to appeal against the punitive costs order granted by the Court against him. The Court exercised a discretion, as it is entitled to do. The reasons are as set out in the judgment and there is no reasonable prospect that another court will interfere with the discretion exercised in this regard. As far as the costs of the application for leave to appeal is concerned, the respondent argued that this application is a continuation of the abuse. I am however of the view that the applicant has already been punished for the abuse of process, the mere launching of the application for leave to appeal does not, in my view, constitute an abuse. The costs order should however follow the result of the application.
The following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.
R TOLMAY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For Applicant: Adv M Mathaphuna instructed by Ndobela and Associates For Respondent: Adv T Ossin instructed by Tonkin Clacey Attorneys Date of hearing: 30 January 2025 Date of judgment: 5 February 2025