Nkogatse v National Director of Public Prosecutions (73663/2016) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1942 (21 November 2023)

Nkogatse v National Director of Public Prosecutions (73663/2016) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1942 (21 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant had established reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding whether there was one or two prosecutions and whether those prosecutions were malicious, thus giving rise to a damages claim. The threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, was met. The court was satisfied that the applicant's grounds were not remote or merely arguable, but presented a realistic chance of success on appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Full Court of the Division.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1942
Parties
Applicant: Hosea Madime Nkogatse; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2023
Case Number
73663/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Cross Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division, with costs in the appeal.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Malicious Prosecution, Damages Claim
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Malicious Prosecution Damages Claim

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hosea Madime Nkogatse

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was one or two prosecutions against the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecutions were malicious and gave rise to a claim for damages.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding whether there was one or two prosecutions and whether those prosecutions were malicious, thus giving rise to a damages claim. The threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, was met. The court was satisfied that the applicant's grounds were not remote or merely arguable, but presented a realistic chance of success on appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Full Court of the Division.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division, with costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division.
  • Costs in the appeal are awarded.