Palazollo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (4731/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 243 (27 May 2011)
Although the court is satisfied that its judgment was correct, it acknowledges that the nature of the matter is such that the possibility of another court arriving at a different conclusion cannot be excluded. The case is of extreme importance to both parties and to others who may be involved in extradition...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] ZAWCHC 243
- Parties
- Applicant: Vito Roberto Palazzolo; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Former Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Director-General: Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecution
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 4731/2010
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted against the part of the judgment dismissing the relief sought in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 of the Notice of Motion and the costs order.
- Judges
- Fourie, Yekiso
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Order, Extradition Proceedings
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vito Roberto Palazzolo
Applicant
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent
Former Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent
Director-General: Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent
National Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal against the dismissal of relief sought in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 of the Notice of Motion.
- 2 Whether the case is of substantial importance to the parties and the public, justifying leave to appeal.
- 3 Whether the costs order should be subject to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the court is satisfied that its judgment was correct, it acknowledges that the nature of the matter is such that the possibility of another court arriving at a different conclusion cannot be excluded. The case is of extreme importance to both parties and to others who may be involved in extradition proceedings, and the general public has an interest in its outcome. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is granted against the part of the judgment dismissing the relief sought in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 of the Notice of Motion, as well as the costs order.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted against the part of the judgment dismissing the relief sought in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 of the Notice of Motion and the costs order.
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the order dismissing the relief sought in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 of the Notice of Motion and the costs order.
- The costs of the application for leave to appeal are to be costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NUMBER: 4731/2010
DATE: 27 MAY 2011
In the matter between:
VITO ROBERTO PALAZZOLO …...........................................................Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ….........................................1st Respondent THE FORMER MINISTER OF JUSTICE ANDCONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT …........................................2nd Respondent THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL: JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT …................................3rd Respondent THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION ….......................................................................4th Respondent JUDGMENT Application for Leave to Appeal FOURIE. J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against that part of our judgment handed down on 14 April 2011,
which relates to the order dismissing the relief which was sought in terms of paragraph 6.1 to 6.5 of the Notice of Motion, including the costs order made by us. The grounds on which the application is brought are set out fully in the application for leave to appeal dated 21 April 2011. The application is opposed. It is trite that the test in determining whether leave to appeal should be granted is two-fold, firstly, whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding and, secondly, whether or not the case is of substantial importance to the parties involved. Although I am satisfied that our judgment is correct, the matter is of such a nature that I do not believe that the prospect of another court coming to a different conclusion, can be excluded. In addition, it is clear that the matter is of extreme importance to both parties and even to other parties who may be involved
extradition proceedings. It can also be said that the general public has an interest in the outcome of the matter. In these circumstances, I believe that the application should be granted. In the result the applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against that part of our judgment handed down on 14 April 2011, which relates to the order dismissing the relief which was sought in terms of paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 of applicant's Notice of Motion as well as the costs order made by us. The costs of the application for leave to appeal, are to be costs in the appeal. FOURIE. YEKISO. J: I agree YEKISO. J
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ….........................................1st Respondent
THE FORMER MINISTER OF JUSTICE ANDCONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT …........................................2nd Respondent
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL: JUSTICE
AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT …................................3rd Respondent
THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTION ….......................................................................4th Respondent
JUDGMENT
Application for Leave to Appeal
FOURIE. J:
The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against that part of our judgment handed down on 14 April 2011,
which relates to the order dismissing the relief which was sought in terms of paragraph 6.1 to 6.5 of the Notice of Motion, including the costs order made by us.
The grounds on which the application is brought are set out fully in the application for leave to appeal dated 21 April 2011. The application is opposed.
It is trite that the test in determining whether leave to appeal should be granted is two-fold, firstly, whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding and, secondly, whether or not the case is of substantial importance to the parties involved.
Although I am satisfied that our judgment is correct, the matter is of such a nature that I do not believe that the prospect of another court coming to a different conclusion, can be excluded.
In addition, it is clear that the matter is of extreme importance to both parties and even to other parties who may be involved
extradition proceedings. It can also be said that the general public has an interest in the outcome of the matter. In these circumstances, I believe that the application should be granted.
In the result the applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against that part of our judgment handed down on 14 April 2011, which relates to the order dismissing the relief which was sought in terms of paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 of applicant's Notice of Motion as well as the costs order made by us. The costs of the application for leave to appeal, are to be costs in the appeal.
FOURIE.
YEKISO. J: I agree
YEKISO. J