IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE CASE NO: 060240/2022
(I) REPORT ABLE: ~O /
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ~/NO
(3) REVISED:
.. s...J..2.\.~~
DATE SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
RHULANI HORWARD NDOBELA Applicant
and
COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE First Respondent
MIDSTREAM RIDGE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION NPC Second Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
TOLMAY J
1. After hearing argument, considering the heads of argument and my judgment I
am of the view that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would
come to another conclusion as envisaged on section 17 (1 )(a)(ii) of the Superior
Courts Act, for the reasons set out in my judgment.
2. The applicant also argued that it will be in the interests of justice to grant leave as
the matter raises constitutional issues and it is "in the broader interests of justice"
to grant leave to appeal. This seems to be a reference to section 167 (3)(ii) of the
Constitution . This section deals with the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to
grant leave to appeal. This section does not find application here. However, the
argument may be interpreted to mean that there are compelling reasons to grant
leave. No compelling reasons, however, exist why leave should be granted, as
the dispute is limited to the interests of the parties before Court and does not
have any broader relevance or impact, nor does it deal with important and
complex legal issues.
3. The applicant furthermore seeks leave to appeal against the punitive costs order
granted by the Court against him. The Court exercised a discretion , as it is
entitled to do. The reasons are as set out in the judgment and there is no
reasonable prospect that another court will interfere with the discretion exercised
in this regard. As far as the costs of the application for leave to appeal is
concerned , the respondent argued that this application is a continuation of the
abuse. I am however of the view that the applicant has already been punished for
the abuse of process, the mere launching of the application for leave to appeal
does not, in my view, constitute an abuse. The costs order should however follow
the result of the application .
The following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Appearances: R TOLMAY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
For Applicant: Adv M Mathaphuna instructed by Ndobela and Associates
For Respondent: Adv T Ossin instructed by Tonkin Clacey Attorneys
Date of hearing: 30 January 2025
Date of judgment: 5 February 2025