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
>>
2020
>>
[2020] ZAGPPHC 77
|
|
Tukayi v Minister of Defence (52546/2014) [2020] ZAGPPHC 77 (24 February 2020)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED.
CASE NO
:
52546/2014
DATE
:
2019-08-02
24/2/2020
In
the matter between
MELUMZI
TUKAYI
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF DEFENCE
Respondent
JUDGMENT
WANLESS (AJ):
This is an application by
the applicant for leave to appeal to the full bench of this division
arising from an application and,
more particularly, in light of the
judgment handed down by this court on 4 May 2018 whereby the
applicant's application for review
was dismissed, with costs.
This
court has had the opportunity to listen carefully to the submissions
made by the applicant, who appears in person, and also
those
submissions made on behalf of the respondent by respondents' counsel.
It is trite that in terms of subsection 17(1)(a)(i)
of the
Superior Courts Act, leave to appeal may only be given where the
judge concerned is of the opinion that the appeal would
have a
reasonable prospect of success and that another court would come to a
different decision.
It
is neither customary nor expedient, for many reasons, for this court
to deliver a detailed judgment in respect of whether or
not the
applicant has satisfied the criteria as set out in the aforesaid Act.
Having
considered, once again, the applicant's notice of application for
leave to appeal together with the submissions made today
before this
court, this court is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to
satisfy the aforesaid criteria. I may also add
that there are no
other compelling reasons why an appeal should be heard as
contemplated by subsection 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
Certainly, none
were placed before this court at the hearing of the application for
leave to appeal.
Following
thereon, the applicant's application for leave to appeal is
dismissed. There is nothing to warrant this court departing
from what
may be described as the usual order pertaining to costs and that
these costs should follow the result. In light thereof,
the applicant
is ordered to pay the costs of this application for leave to appeal.
In
conclusion, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with
costs.
ON
BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:
IN PERSON
ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
ADV
MAVUNDA.