S.P v C.W and Another (Leave to Appeal) (88660/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1244 (5 December 2024)

S.P v C.W and Another (Leave to Appeal) (88660/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1244 (5 December 2024)

The court found that the grounds advanced for leave to appeal were a repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the main judgment. The applicant's compliance with the order regarding the placement of the minor child did not amount to acquiescence or peremption of his right to appeal. After considering the submissions and the voluminous record, the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there was any compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The application was therefore refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant on the attorney and client scale, including costs for the curatrix.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1244
Parties
Applicant: P[...], S[...] J[...]; Respondent: W[…], C[…] J[…]; Respondent: W[…], B[…]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2024
Case Number
88660/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Handed Down on 2 December 2024.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Guardianship Removal, Primary Residence and Care, Leave to Appeal Test, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Guardianship Removal Primary Residence and Care Leave to Appeal Test Costs Award

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P[...], S[...] J[...]

Applicant

W[…], C[…] J[…]

Respondent

W[…], B[…]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Handed Down on 2 December 2024.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the order removing him as guardian and awarding primary residence and care to the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether there is any other compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's compliance with the order constitutes acquiescence or peremption of his right to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds advanced for leave to appeal were a repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the main judgment. The applicant's compliance with the order regarding the placement of the minor child did not amount to acquiescence or peremption of his right to appeal. After considering the submissions and the voluminous record, the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there was any compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The application was therefore refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant on the attorney and client scale, including costs for the curatrix.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.
  • The costs of counsel for the respondents in this application as well as for the curatrix are awarded on scale C.