Nkosi v MEC for the Department of Health, Gauteng (21336/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1080 (14 December 2016)

Nkosi v MEC for the Department of Health, Gauteng (21336/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1080 (14 December 2016)

The court found that all grounds for leave to appeal had already been fully addressed in the previous judgment, with reasons provided for refusing recusal and granting inspection in loco. There was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and no special circumstances or balance of convenience justifying a piecemeal appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1080
Parties
Plaintiff: Beauty Nkosi obo Nhlanhla Simphiwe Nkosi; Defendant: MEC for the Department of Health, Gauteng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Case Number
21336/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Recusal of Judge, Inspection in Loco, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Recusal of Judge Inspection in Loco Costs Order

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beauty Nkosi obo Nhlanhla Simphiwe Nkosi

Plaintiff

MEC for the Department of Health, Gauteng

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment refusing recusal and granting inspection in loco.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be struck off the roll due to lack of special circumstances or balance of convenience.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all grounds for leave to appeal had already been fully addressed in the previous judgment, with reasons provided for refusing recusal and granting inspection in loco. There was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and no special circumstances or balance of convenience justifying a piecemeal appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, including the costs of two counsel.