Member of the Executive Committee: Health - Limpopo Provincial Government v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another (Leave to Appeal) (B2150/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 589 (20 July 2023)

Member of the Executive Committee: Health - Limpopo Provincial Government v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another (Leave to Appeal) (B2150/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 589 (20 July 2023)

The court found that, after considering the grounds for leave to appeal and the arguments presented, there was neither a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion nor any compelling reason or arguable point of law that justified granting leave to appeal. The requirements of section...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 589
Parties
Applicant: Member of the Executive Committee: Health - Limpopo Provincial Government; Respondent: Health Professions Council of South Africa; Respondent: Dr T Pinkoane N.O
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 July 2023
Case Number
B2150/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Interdict Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act Section 17, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act Section 17 Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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

Member of the Executive Committee: Health - Limpopo Provincial Government

Applicant

Health Professions Council of South Africa

Respondent

Dr T Pinkoane N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the interdict application.
  2. 2 Whether there is any compelling reason or arguable point of law that merits the granting of leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, after considering the grounds for leave to appeal and the arguments presented, there was neither a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion nor any compelling reason or arguable point of law that justified granting leave to appeal. The requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were not met. Accordingly, 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.