Nkosi v Woolworths Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (4959/23) [2024] ZAMPMHC 43 (23 August 2024)

Nkosi v Woolworths Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (4959/23) [2024] ZAMPMHC 43 (23 August 2024)

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any meritorious grounds as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant did not demonstrate that another court would come to a different conclusion. Furthermore, the order sought to be appealed was granted on an unopposed basis, and the applicant failed to respond to the Rule 30 application or file an answering affidavit. The procedural and substantive requirements for leave to appeal were not met, and there are other legal avenues available to the applicant. The application is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAMPMHC 43
Parties
Applicant: Godfrey Nkosi; Respondent: Woolworths Financial Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Case Number
4959/23
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following an Unopposed Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Langa
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings, Amendment of Pleadings, Reasonable Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings Amendment of Pleadings Reasonable Prospects of Success

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Nkosi

Applicant

Woolworths Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following an Unopposed Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has pleaded any meritorious grounds for leave to appeal as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal can be granted against an unopposed interlocutory order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's procedural steps complied with the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any meritorious grounds as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant did not demonstrate that another court would come to a different conclusion. Furthermore, the order sought to be appealed was granted on an unopposed basis, and the applicant failed to respond to the Rule 30 application or file an answering affidavit. The procedural and substantive requirements for leave to appeal were not met, and there are other legal avenues available to the applicant. The application is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay costs, including costs of counsel taxable on Scale C of Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.