Herman v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Another (67151/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 381 (19 December 2013)

Herman v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Another (67151/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 381 (19 December 2013)

The court found that the applicant was appointed under the new Sheriff’s Act, which sets the retirement age at 65 unless the Minister determines otherwise. The transitional provision allowing retirement at 70 applies only to sheriffs appointed under the repealed Act, which does not include the applicant. There was no evidence that the Minister extended the applicant’s retirement age. The argument regarding the existence of a High Court in Mokopane was dismissed as unfounded, since sheriffs may serve High Court processes in districts without a seat of the High Court. The remaining grounds were repetitions of arguments already dismissed in the main judgment. The court concluded that there...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 381
Parties
Applicant: John Herman; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Nkwadi Simon Maremane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Case Number
67151/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
S P Mothle
Legal Topics
Retirement Age of Sheriffs, Transitional Arrangements, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Retirement Age of Sheriffs Transitional Arrangements Leave to Appeal Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Herman

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Nkwadi Simon Maremane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the main judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the retirement age for sheriffs is 65 or 70 under the applicable legislation.
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of the second respondent as sheriff was valid given the reference to a High Court in Mokopane.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was appointed under the new Sheriff’s Act, which sets the retirement age at 65 unless the Minister determines otherwise. The transitional provision allowing retirement at 70 applies only to sheriffs appointed under the repealed Act, which does not include the applicant. There was no evidence that the Minister extended the applicant’s retirement age. The argument regarding the existence of a High Court in Mokopane was dismissed as unfounded, since sheriffs may serve High Court processes in districts without a seat of the High Court. The remaining grounds were repetitions of arguments already dismissed in the main judgment. The court concluded that there...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.