November and Others v Road Accident Fund and Another (53493/2010) [2017] ZAGPPHC 424 (4 May 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 424
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Bagwa
- Case number
- 53493/2010
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Bagwa
- Case number
- 53493/2010
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the existence of divergent decisions in various Divisions regarding the jurisdiction issue constitutes a compelling reason for granting leave to appeal. The matter raises important legal questions that warrant consideration by the Full Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria.
- Costs to be costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
ME November
Applicant Counsel: J. O. Williams SCNG November
Applicant Counsel: J. O. Williams SCNB November
Applicant Counsel: J. O. Williams SCNF November
Applicant Counsel: J. O. Williams SCRoad Accident Fund
Respondent Counsel: R. StrydomMuller & Partners
Respondent Counsel: R. Strydom03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Special Plea
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there is a compelling reason for leave to appeal on the jurisdiction issue.
- 02
Whether divergent decisions in various Divisions justify granting leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that there are divergent decisions in various Divisions regarding the jurisdiction issue, which creates uncertainty and necessitates appellate review. They submitted that the matter raises important legal questions that require clarification by a higher court.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the special plea was correctly upheld and that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion. They argued that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may be granted where there is a compelling reason for an appeal to be heard, especially in cases involving divergent decisions on jurisdiction.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the existence of divergent decisions in various Divisions regarding the jurisdiction issue constitutes a compelling reason for granting leave to appeal. The matter raises important legal questions that warrant consideration by the Full Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria.
Obiter and limits
- Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria.
- Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria.
- Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Ruling
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 53493/2010
DATE: 4/5/2017
In the matter between:
ME
NOVEMBER First
Plaintiff
NG
NOVEMBER
Second Plaintiff
NB
NOVEMBER Third
Plaintiff
NF NOVEMBER Fourth
Plaintiff
and
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND First
Defendant
MULLER & PARTNERS Second
Defendant
APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
Bagwa J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment handed down on 15 November 2016 in terms of which the special plea raised by the second defendant was upheld.
[2] I have considered the reasons advanced by the applicants for the application for leave and more particularly divergent decisions in the various Divisions regarding the jurisdiction issue. Mainly for that reason I have come to the
conclusion that:
2.1 There is a compelling reason that an appeal should be heard and the application is granted in terms of section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 for leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria.
2.2 Costs to be costs in the appeal.
_______
S. A. M.
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of Hearing: 04 May 2017
Date of Judgment: 04 May 2017
For the Applicant: Advocate J. O. Williams SC
Instructed by: Marais Basson Attorneys
For the Respondents: Advocate R. Strydom
Instructed by: Muller & Partners
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.