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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPPHC 196
|
|
Shabangu and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (112621/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 196 (26 February 2025)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(Gauteng Division,
Pretoria)
Case no: 112621/24
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED.
DATE:
26 February 2025
Heard
on: 25 February 2025
Judgment:
26 February 2025
In
the matter between:
DUMISA
LEONARD
FIRST APPLICANT
SHABANGU
DL
SHABANGU INCORPORATED
SECOND APPLICANT
ATTORNEYS
AND
THE
SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE
RESPONDENT
COUNCIL
JUDGMENT
STRIJDOM,
J
1.
In this matter the applicants apply for leave to appeal to the Full
Court of this Division
against the whole of my judgment and order
dated 23 January 2025, granting the application brought by the
respondent.
2.
The application for leave to appeal is opposed by the respondent.
3.
The grounds of appeal are set out in the application for leave to
appeal. I do not intend
to repeat same.
4.
Section 17(1)(a)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
provides that
leave to appeal may only be granted where the Judge or Judges
concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would
have a reasonable
prospect of success; or if there is some compelling reason why the
appeal should be heard including conflicting
Judgments on the matter
under consideration.
5.
With the enactment of
section 17
of the Act, the test has now
obtained statutory force and is to be applied using the word "would"
in deciding whether
to grant leave. In other words, the test is
"would another Court come to a different decision."
6.
It is now trite that an appellant faces a higher and stringent
threshold in terms of the
Act. The use of the word "would"
in the new statute indicates a measure of certainty that another
Court will differ from
the Court whose judgment is sought to be
appealed against.
7.
In respect of the application for leave to appeal against the whole
of my judgment, the applicants
raised as grounds a challenge to every
finding made in the judgment. The argument on this aspect was
essentially a re-presentation
of that which was advanced during the
main application, and which was dealt with in the Judgment.
8.
I have considered the grounds upon which this application for leave
to appeal has been brought
and the arguments advanced by the parties
at the hearing. I have also considered the reasons for my judgment on
the main application
and am of the view that there is neither a
reasonable prospect that another Court would come to a different
conclusion nor an arguable
point of law or other compelling reason
which merits the granting of leave to appeal
9.
In the circumstances, it is ordered that:
9.1
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
JJ
STRIJDOM
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
OF
SOUTH-AFRICA, GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
APPEARANCES:
For the
applicants:
Adv BL Shabangu
Instructed by:
Ledwaba Mazwai
Attorneys
For the
respondent:
Adv JM Moolman
Instructed by:
Damons Magardie
Richardson Attorneys