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 589
|
|
Member of the Executive Committee: Health - Limpopo Provincial Government v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another (Leave to Appeal) (B2150/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 589 (20 July 2023)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
Case No. B2150/2023
(1) REPORTABLE:
YES/
NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES: YES/
NO
(3) REVISED
DATE:
20 July 2023
SIGNATURE:.
In the matter
between:
MEMBER OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
HEALTH - LIMPOPO
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
APPLICANT
And
HEALTH PROFESSIONS
COUNCIL OF
SOUTH AFRICA
FIRST RESPONDENT
DR T PINKOANE
N.O
SECOND RESPONDENT
Coram:
Millar
J
Heard on:
20 July
2023
Delivered:
20 July 2023 - This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded
to the
CaseLines
system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 10H30 on 20 July 2023.
Summary:
Application
for leave to appeal – No prospect another court would come to a
different conclusion or compelling reason for
the granting of leave
- application dismissed with costs
ORDER
It is Ordered:
[1]
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1]
This is an application
for leave to appeal the dismissal of an application to interdict the
first respondent from holding an enquiry
into the conduct of the
present MEC for Health in the Limpopo Province – Dr. P
Ramathuba. The judgment was handed down on
handed down on 2 June
2023.
[2]
The
test for the granting of leave to appeal in the present matter is set
out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts
Act
[1]
:
“
Leave to
appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of
the opinion that –
(a)
(i) the
appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is
some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on
the matter under consideration.”
[3]
I have considered the grounds upon which this application for leave
to
appeal has been brought and the arguments advanced by the parties.
I have also considered the reasons for dismissing the application
on
2 June 2023 and am of the view that there is neither a reasonable
prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion
nor
any other compelling reason or arguable point of law which merits the
granting of leave to appeal.
[4]
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
[4.1] The
application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
A MILLAR
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD ON:
20 JULY 2023
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:
20 JULY 2023
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:
ADV. M RAMAILA SC
ADV.
D MADIBA
INSTRUCTED BY:
THE STATE ATTORNEY, PRETORIA
REFERENCE:
689/23/RA
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
ADV. J RAUTENBACH SC
INSTRUCTED BY:
NKOPODI MPHAHLELE INCORPORATED
REFERENCE:
MPHAHELE/MUTHAMBI/00031
[1]
Act
10 of 2013