South African Medical Association NPC v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (2020/21526) [2022] ZAGPPHC 895 (14 November 2022)
The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been dealt with in the original judgment. After considering submissions from both parties and reviewing the grounds for appeal, the court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPPHC 895
- Parties
- Applicant: South African Medical Association NPC; Respondent: South African Medical Association Trade Union; Respondent: Gerhard Vosloo N.O.; Respondent: Dr Cedric Siphamandla Sihlangu; Respondent: Dr Tshilidzi Orecious Sadiki; Respondent: Dr Nkateko G Mnisi; Respondent: Dr Malose Marakalala; Respondent: Dr Johanne M Mkhabela
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2020/21526
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal or Full Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Mokose
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Superior Courts Act Section 17
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
South African Medical Association NPC
Applicant
South African Medical Association Trade Union
Respondent
Gerhard Vosloo N.O.
Respondent
Dr Cedric Siphamandla Sihlangu
Respondent
Dr Tshilidzi Orecious Sadiki
Respondent
Dr Nkateko G Mnisi
Respondent
Dr Malose Marakalala
Respondent
Dr Johanne M Mkhabela
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal or Full Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.
- 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been dealt with in the original judgment. After considering submissions from both parties and reviewing the grounds for appeal, the court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The requirements of Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not met, and therefore, leave to appeal was refused.
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
41 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2020/21526
REPORT ABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
14 NOVEMBER 2022
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION NPC Applicant
and
SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
TRADE UNION 1st
Respondent
GERHARD VOSLOO N.O. 2nd
Respondent
DR CEDRIC SIPHAMANDLA SIHLANGU 3rd
Respondent
DR TSHILIDZI ORECIOUS SADIKI 4th
Respondent
DR NKATEKO G MNISI 5th
Respondent
DR MALOSE MARAKALALA 6th
Respondent
DR JOHANNE M MKHABELA 71h Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL
MOKOSE J
[1] The first to seventh respondents (referred to as the applicants in this application for leave to appeal) have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal alternatively, the Full Court of this division against the order I delivered on 19 May 2020 under case number 21526/2020.
[2] The applicants seek leave to appeal on several grounds as stated in their application for leave to appeal. Counsel for the applicants addressed the court on the salient points raised in the application. These points were opposed by counsel for the respondent on the grounds that I have reasoned out well in my judgment. Furthermore, submissions were made that there are no prospects that another court would have come to a different conclusion.
[3] The test for granting an application for leave to appeal is whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would have come to a different conclusion. Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ("the Act") states that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge or judges are of the opinion that:
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) for some other compelling reason it should be heard, including conflicting judgements on the matter under consideration;
(b) the decision sought does not fall within the ambit of Section 16(2)(a) of the Act; and
(c) where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties.
[4] The test laid down in Section 17 of the Act is now a subjective one and no longer an objective test. There must be a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against.[1]
[5] I had dealt in depth with all the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my judgement. After listening to submissions by both counsel for the applicants and counsel for the respondent and after reading the application for leave to appeal, I am of the view that there are no prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion.
(6) Accordingly, the following order is granted:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
MOKOSE J A
20 August 2020
(Revised on 14 November 2022)
[1] The Mont Cheveaux Trust (IT2012/28) v Tina Goosen & 18 Others (unreported judgment deliver on 3 November 2014)