Nthinte and Another v Minister Police Gauteng Provincial and Another (81435/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 535 (10 June 2024)

Nthinte and Another v Minister Police Gauteng Provincial and Another (81435/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 535 (10 June 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicants did not dispute the respondents' evidence, including the police officer's testimony and documentary proof. The grounds for appeal were not supported by the facts, and the legal precedent cited by the applicants was distinguishable and not applicable to the present matter. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, and therefore, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 535
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Marutla Nthinte; Applicant: Madila Bashley; Respondent: Minister Police Gauteng Provincial; Respondent: Commissioner of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2024
Case Number
81435/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 18 December 2023.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Nharmuravate
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Superior Courts Act Section 17
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Superior Courts Act Section 17

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Marutla Nthinte

Applicant

Madila Bashley

Applicant

Minister Police Gauteng Provincial

Respondent

Commissioner of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 18 December 2023.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether another court would come to a different conclusion on the facts presented.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds raised by the applicants demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicants did not dispute the respondents' evidence, including the police officer's testimony and documentary proof. The grounds for appeal were not supported by the facts, and the legal precedent cited by the applicants was distinguishable and not applicable to the present matter. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, and therefore, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.