Vorster and Another v Bala (Leave to Appeal) (24463/2013) [2025] ZAGPJHC 776 (12 August 2025)

Vorster and Another v Bala (Leave to Appeal) (24463/2013) [2025] ZAGPJHC 776 (12 August 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to convince it that another court would reach a different conclusion. After considering all grounds of appeal and submissions, the judge held that the application does not have reasonable prospects of success. The argument that the matter involves a novel legal duty of care was rejected, as the point is not novel and has been addressed by South African courts. No compelling reason was found to grant leave to appeal. The normal rule that costs follow the result was applied, and costs of two counsel on Scale C were awarded.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 776
Parties
Applicant: Samantha Vorster; Applicant: Steve Christian Vorster; Respondent: Dr Rafik Bala
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2025
Case Number
24463/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Appeal or Full Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
G Ally
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Costs Order, Duty of Care
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Costs Order Duty of Care

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samantha Vorster

Applicant

Steve Christian Vorster

Applicant

Dr Rafik Bala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Appeal or Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the statutory threshold for reasonable prospects of success.
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason, including a novel legal point, to grant leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether costs should follow the result and be awarded on Scale C.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to convince it that another court would reach a different conclusion. After considering all grounds of appeal and submissions, the judge held that the application does not have reasonable prospects of success. The argument that the matter involves a novel legal duty of care was rejected, as the point is not novel and has been addressed by South African courts. No compelling reason was found to grant leave to appeal. The normal rule that costs follow the result was applied, and costs of two counsel on Scale C were awarded.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of counsel on Scale C, the one paying, the other to be absolved.