Sehularo v Free State Gambling Liqour & Tourism Authority and Another (4350/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 30 (14 February 2020)
The court found that the applicant failed to raise any new or compelling grounds for appeal, with most grounds being a repetition of previously rejected arguments. No conflicting judgments were cited, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the exercise of discretion regarding costs was a misdirection. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] ZAFSHC 30
- Parties
- Applicant: Neo Lillian Sehularo; Respondent: Free State Gambling Liquor & Tourism Authority; Respondent: First National Bank Ltd
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 4350/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- MATHEBULA
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs Award, Prospects of Success
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Neo Lillian Sehularo
Applicant
Free State Gambling Liquor & Tourism Authority
Respondent
First National Bank Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons or conflicting judgments warranting the appeal.
- 3 Whether the costs order was a misdirection by the trial judge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to raise any new or compelling grounds for appeal, with most grounds being a repetition of previously rejected arguments. No conflicting judgments were cited, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the exercise of discretion regarding costs was a misdirection. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
46 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case No.:4350/2019
Case No.:
4350/2019
In the application for leave to appeal between:
NEO LILLIAN SEHULAROApplicant
NEO LILLIAN SEHULARO
Applicant
FREE STATE GAMBLING LIQUOR & TOURISM
AUTHORITY1stRespondent
AUTHORITY
Respondent
FIRST NATIONAL BANK LTD2ndRespondent
FIRST NATIONAL BANK LTD
In re:
AUTHORITYApplicant
FIRST NATIONAL BANK LTD1stRespondent
NEO LILLIAN SEHULARO2ndRespondent
NEO LILLIAN SEHULARO
JUDGMENT BY:MATHEBULA, J
JUDGMENT BY:
MATHEBULA, J
HEARD ON:14 FEBRUARY 2020
HEARD ON:
14 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED ON:14 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED ON:
14 FEBRUARY 2020
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole judgement I delivered on 13 December 2019. The order sought is that in the event the applicant is successful, this matter must be heard by the full bench of this division.
[2] The application is premised on fifty two (52) grounds of appeal. A substantial number of them were not raised when the matter was argued. Neither where they part of the applicant’s case on the occasion. A great number of them are tantamount to a rehash of the argument that was found to be unsustainable.
[3] Leave to appeal may only be given where the appeal has reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason why it should be heard taking into consideration conflicting judgements. The test, as I understand it, is that there is a measure of certainty that another court will differ with the judgement that is sought to be appealed against.
[4] Awarding costs against any litigant in a matter lies within the wide discretion of the trial judge. On the grounds as encapsulated in the notice, it appears that the applicant simply disagrees with the judgement without cogent reasons why the exercise of the discretion was wrongor constituted a misdirection. There are no prospects of success in this matter and I was not referred to any conflicting judgements. The application ought to fail.
[4] Awarding costs against any litigant in a matter lies within the wide discretion of the trial judge. On the grounds as encapsulated in the notice, it appears that the applicant simply disagrees with the judgement without cogent reasons why the exercise of the discretion was wrong
or constituted a misdirection. There are no prospects of success in this matter and I was not referred to any conflicting judgements. The application ought to fail.
[5] In the circumstances I make the following order:-
5.1. The application is dismissed with costs.
M. A. MATHEBULA, J
On behalf of Applicant:
Adv. R. Bester
Instructed by:
Motaung Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of Respondents: Mr. D. Hugget
Instructed by:
Huggett Retief Incorporated