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 773
|
|
Mafungo v Keele (Leave to Appeal) (1930/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 773 (7 August 2024)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 1930/2021
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
Date: 7 August 2024
E van der Schyff
In
the matter between:
Kalipa
Kagiso Mangaliso Mafungo
Applicant
and
Dr.
Mothobi Godfrey Keele
Respondent
In
re:
Dr.
Mothobi Godfrey Keele
Applicant
and
Legal
Practice Council
First Respondent
Kalipa
Kagiso Mangaliso Mafungo
Second Respondent
Sheriff
Pretoria Central
Third respondent
JUDGMENT: Application for
Leave to Appeal
Van
der Schyff J
Introduction
[1]
The applicant, Mr.
Mafungo, applies for leave to appeal the judgment and order handed
down by me on 2 August 2024.
[2]
The notice of the
application for leave to appeal stipulates the ground for the appeal.
Mr. Mafungo filed heads of argument elaborating
on the grounds
stipulated in the notice.
[3]
The first ground of
appeal is that I erred in fact and in law in finding that the notice
of appeal filed on 11 September 2023 suspended
the operation and
execution of the order handed down by Sardiwalla J on 7 September
2022. Mr. Mafungo clarified this ground of
appeal by qualifying in
the heads of argument “specifically in relation to the taxation
of the 29
th
of November 2023.”
[4]
After an initial
misunderstanding, I pointed out to Mr. Mafungo that I never found
that the application for leave to appeal, filed
by Dr. Keele against
the judgment handed down by Sardiwala J, affected the right to have
the bill of costs taxed. In paragraph
6 of the judgment, I stated:
‘
Whether
there is merit in the contention that it is irregular to set down a
taxation while an application for leave to appeal is
pending is
beside the point.’
[5]
As for the contention
that the execution and operation of Sardiwala J’s judgment and
order were not suspended by the filing
of an application for leave to
appeal, such contention is wrong. Sardiwala J’s judgment and
order was not an interlocutory
order, it was a final order, and
section 18(1)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
applies. But, as
I stated, this is beside the point.
[6]
I have considered the
remainder of the grounds of appeal raised by Mr. Mafungo, and I am of
the opinion that the jurisdictional
requirements to succeed with an
application for leave to appeal have not been met. The application
stands to be dismissed.
ORDER
In
the result, the following order is granted:
1.
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed with costs.
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court
Delivered:
This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
For the applicant:
Mr. K. Mafungo
Instructed by:
Mafungo Attorneys
For the respondent:
In person
Date of the
hearing:
7 August 2024
Date of judgment:
7 August 2024