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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 442
|
|
Mashaba v Minister of Police (Leave to Appeal) (54940/2012) [2024] ZAGPPHC 442 (4 May 2024)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
CASE
NO:
54940/2012
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/ NO
(3)
REVISED: 4/5/2024
DATE:
4/5/2024
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
ALFRED
MASHABA
Plaintiff/Respondent
and
MINISTER
OF
POLICE
Defendant/ Applicant
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION
FOR
LEAVE
TO
APPEAL
(The
matter was heard in open court but judgment was reserved and handed
down by uploading the judgment onto the electronic file
of the matter
on Caselines. The date of uploading onto CaseLines is deemed to be
the date of the judgment}
BEFORE:
HOLLAND-MUTER
J:
[1]
The trial was
heard by this court on 15 August 2023; oral arguments were presented
in open court on 11 September 2023 and after
receiving written heads
of
arguments
judgment was handed down on
18
December 2023.
[2]
The defendant
filed an application for leave to
appeal onto
Caselines and after some delay all parties were available on 3 May
2024 to argue the application for leave to
appeal.
[3]
The procedure
for leave to
appeal is
dealt with in
Section
17
(1)(a)(i)
& (ii) of the Superior Court Act, Act 10
of
2013.
The
position after the amendment of Section 17 is that a party moving an
application for leave to appeal is burdened with a
higher
threshold
to
overcome than
previously. A court should only grant leave to
appeal where
the judge or judges are of
the opinion
that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.
Previously the test was whether another court
may
come to
another decision, but the use of
the word
"would"
indicates
a measure of
certainty
that another
court
will differ
from the court of first instance and secondly the word
"only"
is
indicative of a more stringent test to satisfy before leave for
appeal is
granted
.
[4]
For purpose of this judgment there is no need to repeat the factual
finding in the main judgment. The question of prescription
was
addressed in detail in the
main judgment
and
needs
no
further
deliberation
.
[5]
Having heard both counsel and perusing the Application for Leave to
Appeal, I am of the view that the applicant does not pass
the
stringent rest that another court would differ from the judgment.
[6]
The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Order:
The
application
for
leave
to
appeal
is
refused
with
costs.
HOLLAND-MUTER
J
JUDGE
OF
THE
PRETORIA
HIGH
COURT
Application
for Leave to Appeal was heard on 3 May 2024.
Judgment
was
handed
down on 6
May 2024
by uploading
onto
the
electronic
"·
file of the
matter on Caselines
FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT:
Adv
P
Leopeng
FOR
DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
:
Adv
S
Jozana