Phiyega v Farlam N.O and Others (49521/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 684 (19 October 2021)
The court found that the grounds of appeal did not persuade it that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the review application. The judge was satisfied that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no other compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZAGPPHC 684
- Parties
- Applicant: General Victoria Mangwashi Phiyega; Respondent: Judge I.G Farlam N.O; Respondent: Advocate P.D Hemraj SC; Respondent: Advocate B.R Tokota SC; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 49521/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Review Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Ranchod
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Review Application, Prospects of Success, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
General Victoria Mangwashi Phiyega
Applicant
Judge I.G Farlam N.O
Respondent
Advocate P.D Hemraj SC
Respondent
Advocate B.R Tokota SC
Respondent
President of the Republic of South Africa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of the review application.
- 2 Whether there are other compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the grounds of appeal did not persuade it that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the review application. The judge was satisfied that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no other compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
19/10/2021
CASE NO: 49521/2016
In the matter between:
GENERAL VICTORIA MANGWASHI PHIYEGA
Applicant
And
JUDGE I.G FARLAM N.O
First Respondent
ADVOCATE P.D HEMRAJ SC
Second Respondent
ADVOCATE B.R TOKOTA SC
Third Respondent
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
Fourth Respondent
AFRICA
Delivered. This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email. The date and time for hand down is deemed to be 10h00 on 19 October 2021.
JUDGMENT
RANCHOD, J
[1] In this application by the applicant for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order I made, I considered the written application, the heads of argument and the oral submissions via video conference.
[2] My judgment sets out the reasons for the dismissal of the review application. The grounds of appeal do not persuade me that another court will come to a different conclusion. I am accordingly of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
[3] I am also of the view that there are no other compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard.
[4] I make the following order:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Date of hearing:
14 September 2021
Date of judgment:
19 October 2021
Appearances:
Appearance for Applicant:
Adv W.R Mokhare SC & Adv Z.
Manentsa
Instructed by Werksmans Attorneys
c/o Mabuela Inc.
4th Floor, Charter House
179 Bosman Street
Arcadia
Pretoria
Appearance for 1st to 3rd Respondents: No appearance
Appearance for Fourth Respondent: Adv K. Pillay SC & Adv F.B Pelser
Instructed by State Attorney
Salu Building
316 Thabo Sehume Street