Selota v Chuene (52908/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 655 (6 September 2022)

Selota v Chuene (52908/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 655 (6 September 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to advance any new grounds beyond those previously considered and dismissed in the main application. The applicant did not provide any authority or written agreement supporting his contention that fees are only payable after taxation or after he is paid by his client. The court held that such a rule would be unsustainable and that the suggestion of an agreement was implausible. Consequently, the applicant's contentions were found to lack substance, and there were no prospects of success for the appeal, especially considering the elevated threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 655
Parties
Applicant: Mamolazelo Alfred Selota; Respondent: Adv KC Chuene
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2022
Case Number
52908/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Skosana
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Taxation of Costs, Rescission Application
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Taxation of Costs Rescission Application

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamolazelo Alfred Selota

Applicant

Adv KC Chuene

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown prospects of success for leave to appeal against the dismissal of his rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's fees are payable only after taxation of the bills.
  3. 3 Whether there was an agreement between the parties that payment would be made only after the applicant was paid by his client.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to advance any new grounds beyond those previously considered and dismissed in the main application. The applicant did not provide any authority or written agreement supporting his contention that fees are only payable after taxation or after he is paid by his client. The court held that such a rule would be unsustainable and that the suggestion of an agreement was implausible. Consequently, the applicant's contentions were found to lack substance, and there were no prospects of success for the appeal, especially considering the elevated threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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