About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 495
|
|
Republic of Mozambique v Forum De Monitoria Do Orcamento and Others (40441/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 495 (27 July 2022)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
Case
no. 40441/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
27
July 2022
In
the application for leave to appeal between:
REPUBLIC
OF MOZAMBIQUE
Applicant
and
FORUM
DE MONITORIA
DO
ORÇAMENTO
First Respondent
MANUAL
CHANG
Second Respondent
MINISTER
OF JUSTICE AND
CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
Third Respondent
DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS,
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Fourth
Respondent
HELEN
SUZMAN FOUNDATION
Fifth Respondent
DIRECTOR
GENERAL: DEPARTMENT
Sixth Respondent
OF
HOME AFFAIRS
MINISTER
OF HOME AFFAIRS
Seventh Respondent
LEAVE
TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
[1]
The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
against prayers
1 and 2 of the order given by me on 10 November 2021.
The first and fifth respondents oppose the application. The first
respondent
abides the decision of this Court.
[2]
I granted the following relief:
Order
1. The
decision by the second respondent on or about 23 August 2021, to
extradite the first respondent to the Republic
of Mozambique, is
declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution of South Africa
1996, and is invalid and set aside.
2. The
decision of the second respondent on 21 May 2019 is substituted with
the following:
“
Mr Manuel Chang is
to be surrendered and extradited to the United States of America to
stand trial for his alleged offences in the
United States of America,
as contained in the extradition request, dated 28 January 2019.
[3]
On 15 December 2021, the applicant applied for leave to appeal
directly to the Constitutional
Court. The application was dismissed
with costs and the Constitutional Court found that it was not in the
interests of justice
to hear the case at that stage.
[4]
The Minister did not oppose the relief or support the relief sought
in the Constitutional
Court. The same applies in this application for
leave to appeal
[5]
The applicant in its Notice of Appeal has relied upon
section
17(1)(a)(i)(ii)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
.
Section
17(1)(a)
provides:
“
Leave
to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are
of the opinion that-
(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;”
[6]
I have considered the submissions made by all the parties. I find
that the applicant
has not presented any compelling reasons why the
applicant should be granted leave to appeal. Furthermore the appeal
does not have
a reasonable prospect of success in a higher court.
[7]
In the result the
applicant for leave to appeal is refused.
THE
ORDER
(1)
Leave to appeal is refused.
(2)
The applicant shall bear the costs of
the application for leave to appeal in respect of the First
Respondent including the costs
of two counsel and the costs of the
Fifith Respondent.
VICTOR,
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION
DATE
:
27 JULY 2022
Counsel
for the Applicant
Adv W Mokari SC
Attorney
for the Applicant
Mabunda Incorporated
govm@mabundainc.com
Counsel
for the 1
st
Respondent
Adv M de Plessis SC
Adv E Cohen
Attorney
for 1
st
Respondent
Ian Levitt Attorneys
ian@ianlevitt.co.za
Counsel
for Fifth Respondent
Adv Pudifin –Jones
Adv T. Palmer
Attorney
for Fifth Respondent
Attorney Webber Wentzel
Vlad.movshovich@webberwentzel.com