Office of The Public Protector v Msibi (75594/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 564 (25 July 2022)

Office of The Public Protector v Msibi (75594/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 564 (25 July 2022)

The court found that the applicant had succeeded in establishing both reasonable prospects of success and compelling reasons for leave to appeal, particularly due to the existence of a conflicting judgment within the same division. The court held that these factors satisfy the requirements of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 564
Parties
Applicant: The Office of the Public Protector; Respondent: Makhosini Msibi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Case Number
75594/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Single Judge of the High Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
Vuma
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act, Reasonable Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Office of the Public Protector

Applicant

Makhosini Msibi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Single Judge of the High Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons for another court to hear the appeal as contemplated by section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had succeeded in establishing both reasonable prospects of success and compelling reasons for leave to appeal, particularly due to the existence of a conflicting judgment within the same division. The court held that these factors satisfy the requirements of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • Leave is granted to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.