P.M.M obo M.D.M v MEC for Health, Gauteng Province (23339/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 689 (15 July 2025)

P.M.M obo M.D.M v MEC for Health, Gauteng Province (23339/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 689 (15 July 2025)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and complete explanation for the lengthy delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. The explanation offered was inadequate, as the attorneys had always acted on contingency and financial constraints were not relevant. No evidence was presented of prejudice or infringement of rights if condonation were refused. The order sought to be appealed was interlocutory and not final in effect, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the interests of justice required leave to appeal. The grounds of appeal were vague and did not identify any error of law or fact. Accordingly, condonation and leave to appeal were refused.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 689
Parties
Applicant: P M M on behalf of M D M; Respondent: MEC for Health, Gauteng Province
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Case Number
23339/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Condonation and leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Goodman
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Order, Minor Child Rights
Civil Procedure Family and Children Condonation Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order Minor Child Rights

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P M M on behalf of M D M

Applicant

MEC for Health, Gauteng Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the delay and prospects of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the interlocutory order is appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and complete explanation for the lengthy delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. The explanation offered was inadequate, as the attorneys had always acted on contingency and financial constraints were not relevant. No evidence was presented of prejudice or infringement of rights if condonation were refused. The order sought to be appealed was interlocutory and not final in effect, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the interests of justice required leave to appeal. The grounds of appeal were vague and did not identify any error of law or fact. Accordingly, condonation and leave to appeal were refused.

Court Disposition

Condonation and leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The condonation application is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.