Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (52883/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 175 (28 March 2018)

Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (52883/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 175 (28 March 2018)

The court found that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the personal cost order made against the Public Protector. The application for leave to appeal was limited to the order under prayer 4.3, and after considering all arguments and the relevant statutory provisions, the court concluded that the requirements for leave to appeal were not met. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 175
Parties
Applicant: Public Protector; Respondent: South African Reserve Bank; Respondent: ABSA
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Case Number
52883/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Personal Cost Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Pretorius, NP Mngqibisa-Thusi, D S Fourie
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, De Bonis Propriis, Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order De Bonis Propriis Attorney and Client Scale

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Protector

Applicant

South African Reserve Bank

Respondent

ABSA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Personal Cost Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the personal cost order made de bonis propriis against the Public Protector.
  2. 2 Whether the South African Reserve Bank's conditional application for leave to cross appeal should be entertained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the personal cost order made against the Public Protector. The application for leave to appeal was limited to the order under prayer 4.3, and after considering all arguments and the relevant statutory provisions, the court concluded that the requirements for leave to appeal were not met. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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