Steyn v MEC Road and Transport, Gauteng (Leave to Appeal) (20693/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 814 (20 August 2024)

Steyn v MEC Road and Transport, Gauteng (Leave to Appeal) (20693/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 814 (20 August 2024)

The Court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence supporting a plea of contributory negligence and did not admit to such negligence. In the absence of relevant evidence, there is no reasonable prospect that the appeal would succeed on this point. Regarding the alleged conflicting judgments, the Court held that the authorities cited by the applicant do not demonstrate any conflict between the judgments of Notshokovu and Ramakatsa; both judgments articulate the same threshold for granting leave to appeal. The Court concluded that the applicant did not meet the stringent requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act and that there are no compelling reasons or...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 814
Parties
Applicant: Steyn DA; Respondent: MEC Road and Transport, Gauteng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2024
Case Number
20693/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 05 June 2023
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Mabuse
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Contributory Negligence, Conflicting Judgments, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Contributory Negligence Conflicting Judgments 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steyn DA

Applicant

MEC Road and Transport, Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 05 June 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether there are conflicting judgments on the threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence supporting a plea of contributory negligence and did not admit to such negligence. In the absence of relevant evidence, there is no reasonable prospect that the appeal would succeed on this point. Regarding the alleged conflicting judgments, the Court held that the authorities cited by the applicant do not demonstrate any conflict between the judgments of Notshokovu and Ramakatsa; both judgments articulate the same threshold for granting leave to appeal. The Court concluded that the applicant did not meet the stringent requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act and that there are no compelling reasons or...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • Costs are awarded against the applicant, including costs of two counsel.