State Attorney v Notshe (2022/00966) [2025] ZAGPJHC 206 (5 March 2025)

State Attorney v Notshe (2022/00966) [2025] ZAGPJHC 206 (5 March 2025)

The court found the degree of non-compliance to be substantial, with the application for leave to appeal filed nearly four months late. The explanation for the delay was deemed extremely poor, lacking affidavits from the relevant officials and failing to justify why the Solicitor-General's input was necessary. The applicant's prospects of success in the proposed appeal were found to be hopeless, as the judgment debt related to approved work and invoices not implicated in the SIU investigation, and the applicant failed to provide admissible evidence to challenge the respondent's claims. The court concluded that condonation must be refused, as the merits of the appeal did not compensate for...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 206
Parties
Applicant: State Attorney; Respondent: Viwe Samuel Notshe; Respondent: Solicitor-General of South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2025
Case Number
2022/00966
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the applicant.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Judgment Execution, Set Off, Bad Faith Application
Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Judgment Execution Set Off Bad Faith Application

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Attorney

Applicant

Viwe Samuel Notshe

Respondent

Solicitor-General of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the proposed appeal has reasonable prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the degree of non-compliance to be substantial, with the application for leave to appeal filed nearly four months late. The explanation for the delay was deemed extremely poor, lacking affidavits from the relevant officials and failing to justify why the Solicitor-General's input was necessary. The applicant's prospects of success in the proposed appeal were found to be hopeless, as the judgment debt related to approved work and invoices not implicated in the SIU investigation, and the applicant failed to provide admissible evidence to challenge the respondent's claims. The court concluded that condonation must be refused, as the merits of the appeal did not compensate for...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the applicant's application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the costs of the application.