Sibeko v Mogashoa and Another (064969/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 752 (14 July 2025)

Sibeko v Mogashoa and Another (064969/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 752 (14 July 2025)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal failed to meet the requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds of appeal were vague, did not address the final order of contempt, and did not raise any important question of law or compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The only final order was the finding of contempt, and the remainder of the order was suspended pending compliance. The second respondent, as a juristic person, was not subject to the prison term, and no sanction was imposed on it. The language and tone used in the application were insulting and uncalled for, warranting a punitive costs order. The application for leave to appeal was...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 752
Parties
Applicant: Feresane Matthew Sibeko; Respondent: Mogale Andries Mogashoa; Respondent: PE & M Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 July 2025
Case Number
064969/2025
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Contempt Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Minnaar AJ
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Contempt of Court, Punitive Costs, Final Vs Interlocutory Orders
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Contempt of Court Punitive Costs Final Vs Interlocutory Orders

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

Feresane Matthew Sibeko

Applicant

Mogale Andries Mogashoa

Respondent

PE & M Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Contempt Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the order appealed against is final in effect and appealable.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds of appeal are properly and sufficiently set out.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal failed to meet the requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds of appeal were vague, did not address the final order of contempt, and did not raise any important question of law or compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The only final order was the finding of contempt, and the remainder of the order was suspended pending compliance. The second respondent, as a juristic person, was not subject to the prison term, and no sanction was imposed on it. The language and tone used in the application were insulting and uncalled for, warranting a punitive costs order. The application for leave to appeal was...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.