Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Makate and Another (57882/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1221 (15 September 2023)

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Makate and Another (57882/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1221 (15 September 2023)

The court found that the order of Kollapen J was clear, unambiguous, and did not require variation. The application for variation was deemed unnecessary and appeared to be a tactic to delay compliance with the court order. The conditional notice of application for leave to appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success, as the order was interlocutory and did not meet the criteria for appealability. The court emphasized the importance of respecting and complying with court orders, and dismissed both applications with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1221
Parties
Applicant: Vodacom (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nkosana Kenneth Makate; Respondent: Shameel Joosub N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Case Number
57882/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Variation of Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Both the application for variation and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Variation of Interlocutory Orders, Leave to Appeal, Rule 42 Application, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Variation of Interlocutory Orders Leave to Appeal Rule 42 Application Costs Orders

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Nkosana Kenneth Makate

Respondent

Shameel Joosub N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Variation of Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of Kollapen J required variation under Rule 42(1)(b) or common law.
  2. 2 Whether Vodacom's application for leave to appeal had reasonable prospects of success.
  3. 3 Whether the applications were filed to frustrate the implementation of the court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order of Kollapen J was clear, unambiguous, and did not require variation. The application for variation was deemed unnecessary and appeared to be a tactic to delay compliance with the court order. The conditional notice of application for leave to appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success, as the order was interlocutory and did not meet the criteria for appealability. The court emphasized the importance of respecting and complying with court orders, and dismissed both applications with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Both the application for variation and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Both applications are dismissed with costs, the costs shall include the costs of employing two counsel.