Hamilton v Member of the Executive Council Responsible for Economic Development, Gauteng and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2023/049211) [2024] ZAGPPHC 922 (19 September 2024)

Hamilton v Member of the Executive Council Responsible for Economic Development, Gauteng and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2023/049211) [2024] ZAGPPHC 922 (19 September 2024)

The court found that the removal of the application for leave to appeal from the roll was due to a procedural error in notification and that the order of removal should be rescinded. The mandate of the attorneys acting for the appellant was deemed valid after hearing both parties. Upon considering the submissions...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 922
Parties
Applicant: Simphiwe Hamilton; Respondent: Member of Executive Council Responsible for Economic Development, Gauteng; Respondent: Gauteng Growth & Development Agency
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2024
Case Number
2023/049211
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Rescission of Removal From the Roll
Outcome
Application for rescission granted; application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Holland-Muter
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rescission of Order, Mandate of Attorney, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Rescission of Order Mandate of Attorney Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simphiwe Hamilton

Applicant

Member of Executive Council Responsible for Economic Development, Gauteng

Respondent

Gauteng Growth & Development Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Rescission of Removal From the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the application for leave to appeal from the roll should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the mandate of the attorneys acting for the appellant is valid.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the removal of the application for leave to appeal from the roll was due to a procedural error in notification and that the order of removal should be rescinded. The mandate of the attorneys acting for the appellant was deemed valid after hearing both parties. Upon considering the submissions and applying section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused, and costs were awarded to the respondent, including those for senior counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission granted; application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the judgment granted on 16 August 2024 is granted and that order is set aside.
  • The application for leave to appeal previously enrolled is re-enrolled and to be heard on this day.