Nkala and Another v Dlodlo In re: Dlodlo v Nkala and Another (16715/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 521 (9 April 2021)

Nkala and Another v Dlodlo In re: Dlodlo v Nkala and Another (16715/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 521 (9 April 2021)

The court found that the order dismissing the stay application was interlocutory in nature and not final, as it did not dispose of any main issue in the proceedings between the parties and could be reconsidered at a later stage. The applicants failed to substantiate why, even if the order was interlocutory, it would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 521
Parties
Applicant: Sukoluhle Thando Nkala; Applicant: Herbert Nkala; Respondent: Molefe Rufaro Mthulisi Dlodlo
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2021
Case Number
16715/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Stay Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
GB Rome
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Proceedings, Costs Taxation
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Orders Leave to Appeal Stay of Proceedings Costs Taxation

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukoluhle Thando Nkala

Applicant

Herbert Nkala

Applicant

Molefe Rufaro Mthulisi Dlodlo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment dismissing the stay application was final or interlocutory in nature.
  2. 2 Whether errors of fact or law in the original judgment justify granting leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require leave to appeal to be granted in respect of an interlocutory order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order dismissing the stay application was interlocutory in nature and not final, as it did not dispose of any main issue in the proceedings between the parties and could be reconsidered at a later stage. The applicants failed to substantiate why, even if the order was interlocutory, it would be in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The alleged factual error regarding the taxation of costs did not result in irreparable harm, nor did it preclude the applicants from bringing a fresh application with proper evidence. The legal ground based on Keshavjee v Ismail was moot, as the applicants had not proposed a conditional stay subject to taxation....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.