Zwane v Sasol Limited and Sasol Technology (91849/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 904 (13 December 2017)

Zwane v Sasol Limited and Sasol Technology (91849/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 904 (13 December 2017)

The court found no reasonable basis for apprehension of bias arising from the judge's remarks, as the transcript showed the comments were generic and did not target the applicant. The application for recusal was dismissed. The court held that it lacked judicial power to grant leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court, as the Superior Courts Act prescribes appeals from a single judge must go to a full court or the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal failed to set out clear grounds and did not comply with procedural rules, but was considered due to the applicant's lay status. The interlocutory orders were interim and not appealable absent exceptional...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 904
Parties
Applicant: PF Zwane; Respondent: Sasol Limited and Sasol Technology
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2017
Case Number
91849/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Recusal
Outcome
Both the application for recusal and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
R G Tolmay
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Vexatious Litigation
Civil Procedure Recusal of Judge Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Vexatious Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PF Zwane

Applicant

Sasol Limited and Sasol Technology

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Recusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse herself from hearing the application.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court is competent.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the requirements of the Superior Courts Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no reasonable basis for apprehension of bias arising from the judge's remarks, as the transcript showed the comments were generic and did not target the applicant. The application for recusal was dismissed. The court held that it lacked judicial power to grant leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court, as the Superior Courts Act prescribes appeals from a single judge must go to a full court or the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal failed to set out clear grounds and did not comply with procedural rules, but was considered due to the applicant's lay status. The interlocutory orders were interim and not appealable absent exceptional...

Court Disposition

Both the application for recusal and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for recusal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application for recusal.