Mangolela v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 319; 91612/2019 (28 March 2023)

23 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Application for leave to appeal — Grounds for leave to appeal — Section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act — Applicant seeking leave to appeal against judgment of 23 November 2022 — Court finding that grounds of appeal did not meet the required threshold and no compelling reason existed to grant leave — Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 319
|

|

Mangolela v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 319; 91612/2019 (28 March 2023)

REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
Case
Number:
91612 /2019
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
(4)
DATE: 28 MARCH 2023
SIGNATURE:
In
the matter between:
STEPHEN MANGOLELA
Applicant
and
THE SOUTH AFRICAN
LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL
Respondent
In
re:
THE SOUTH AFRICAN
LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL
Applicant
and
STEPHEN MANGOLELA
First
Respondent
MANGOLELA INCORPORTED
ATTORNEYS
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
MOGALE
AJ:
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment and order of
this court dated
23 November 2022.
[2]
The application is brought in terms of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii),
to wit, that
the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success
and/or there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be
heard.
[3]
Having carefully considered the grounds of appeal, I am of the view
that the grounds
of appeal do not satisfy the threshold contained in
section 17(1)(i) nor does a compelling reason exists to grant leave
of appeal.
[4]
In the result, I am of the view that the application should be
dismissed. Mr Groome,
the attorney that appeared on behalf of the
respondent, requested that the customary cost order in applications
involving the Legal
Practice Council, to wit on a scale between
attorney and client should be awarded. I can find no reason to
deviate from the customary
cost order and the order will follow.
ORDER
I
propose the following order:
The application is
dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
K
MOGALE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
I agree and it is so
ordered.
N. JANSE VAN
NIEUWENHUIZEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
DATE
HEARD:
02
March 2023
DATE
DELIVERED:
28
March 2023
APPEARANCES
For
the Applicant:
Advocate
A Rafik Bhana SC
B
Brandon Casey
Instructed
by:
AM
Nduna Attorneys
For
the Respondents:
Mr.
L Groome
Instructed
by:
RW
Attorneys Inc