Seriti N.O. and Another v Corruption Watch and Others (81368/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 643 (31 August 2022)

Seriti N.O. and Another v Corruption Watch and Others (81368/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 643 (31 August 2022)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to an excessive and unjustified delay of more than two years, which undermined the principle of finality in litigation. The applicants' justification, based on a complaint before the Judicial Service Commission, was insufficient, as the review judgment did not make findings of misconduct or incapacity relevant to section 177 of the Constitution. The court found no reasonable prospects of success, as the applicants failed to demonstrate any error in the assessment of the Commission's report or the application of legal principles. Furthermore, no legal point requiring the attention of a higher court was identified, and the principles...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 643
Parties
Applicant: Legoabe Willie Seriti N.O.; Applicant: Hendrik Mmolli Thekiso Musi N.O.; Respondent: Corruption Watch; Respondent: Right 2 Know Campaign; Respondent: Arms Procurement Commission; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Defence; Respondent: Minister of Trade and Industry
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2022
Case Number
81368/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Review Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
D Mlambo, D Davis, Leeuw
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Judicial Review of Commission, Principle of Legality, Prospects of Success, Judicial Misconduct Complaint, Section 177 Constitution
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Condonation for Late Filing Judicial Review of Commission Principle of Legality Prospects of Success Judicial Misconduct Complaint +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legoabe Willie Seriti N.O.

Applicant

Hendrik Mmolli Thekiso Musi N.O.

Applicant

Corruption Watch

Respondent

Right 2 Know Campaign

Respondent

Arms Procurement Commission

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Defence

Respondent

Minister of Trade and Industry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the excessive delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the complaint before the Judicial Service Commission justifies the late application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the review of the Commission's report.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to an excessive and unjustified delay of more than two years, which undermined the principle of finality in litigation. The applicants' justification, based on a complaint before the Judicial Service Commission, was insufficient, as the review judgment did not make findings of misconduct or incapacity relevant to section 177 of the Constitution. The court found no reasonable prospects of success, as the applicants failed to demonstrate any error in the assessment of the Commission's report or the application of legal principles. Furthermore, no legal point requiring the attention of a higher court was identified, and the principles...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.