Simpson v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (81791/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 298 (18 June 2020)

Simpson v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (81791/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 298 (18 June 2020)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was defective, as it improperly merged two separate matters and sought relief that only a higher court could grant. The applicant had already amended his particulars of claim, making any appeal against the exception order academic. The grounds for appeal did not address the substance of the judgment but instead repeated unfounded allegations of fraud against the defence counsel. The court held that the order upholding the exception was not final and therefore not appealable. The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 298
Parties
Applicant: Darren Simpson; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Chief Litigation Officer N O Rooney Issacs; Respondent: Deputy Acting State Attorney NO Ian Gough; Respondent: Office Manager NO Veronica Kruger
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Case Number
81791/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Exception Upheld and Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
J Holland-Muter
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Electronic Service, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Exception to Particulars of Claim Leave to Appeal Costs Order Electronic Service Superior Courts Act

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Simpson

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Chief Litigation Officer N O Rooney Issacs

Respondent

Deputy Acting State Attorney NO Ian Gough

Respondent

Office Manager NO Veronica Kruger

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Exception Upheld and Amendment of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the order upholding the exception to the particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the order upholding the exception is appealable.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal is competent given the subsequent amendment of the particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was defective, as it improperly merged two separate matters and sought relief that only a higher court could grant. The applicant had already amended his particulars of claim, making any appeal against the exception order academic. The grounds for appeal did not address the substance of the judgment but instead repeated unfounded allegations of fraud against the defence counsel. The court held that the order upholding the exception was not final and therefore not appealable. The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and 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.