Case Note

Lenah Motlahabo Lebelo v First National Bank

Case No: 143809/2024

Date: 21 July 2025

Reportability

This case is not reportable as it does not establish any new legal principles or significant precedents that would be of interest to other judges. The court explicitly stated that the order removing the urgent application from the roll is not appealable unless the applicant can demonstrate irreparable harm that an appeal could remedy. This highlights the specific circumstances under which appeals can be pursued in urgent applications, making it a matter of procedural significance rather than substantive law.

Cases Cited

No specific cases were cited in the judgment.

Legislation Cited

No specific legislation was referenced in the judgment.

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

In this judgment, the applicant, Ms. Lenah Motlahabo Lebelo, sought leave to appeal a decision made by the court on 20 May 2025, which involved the removal of her urgent application from the roll. The court ruled that such an order is not appealable unless the applicant can prove that they would suffer irreparable harm that could be remedied by an appeal. The court ultimately denied the application for leave to appeal.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include the appealability of orders removing matters from the urgent roll and the criteria for establishing irreparable harm in the context of urgent applications.

Held

The court held that the order removing the urgent application from the roll is not appealable unless the applicant can demonstrate irreparable harm that an appeal could remedy. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was denied.

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms. Lenah Motlahabo Lebelo, filed an urgent application which was subsequently removed from the roll by the court on 20 May 2025. The court's decision included a directive for each party to bear their own costs. Following this decision, Ms. Lebelo sought leave to appeal, arguing that the removal of her application was unjust and that it would cause her irreparable harm.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal question before the court was whether the order to remove the urgent application from the roll was appealable. Additionally, the court needed to consider what constitutes irreparable harm in the context of an appeal against such an order.

ANALYSIS

In its analysis, the court emphasized that the appealability of an order removing a matter from the urgent roll is contingent upon the applicant's ability to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm. The court noted that the threshold for establishing irreparable harm is high and requires clear evidence that the harm cannot be adequately addressed through an appeal. The court found that Ms. Lebelo did not meet this burden, leading to the conclusion that her application for leave to appeal should be denied.

REMEDY

The court denied the application for leave to appeal, affirming the decision made on 20 May 2025 to remove the urgent application from the roll. Each party was ordered to pay their own costs, as previously directed.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The key legal principle established in this case is that an order removing a matter from the urgent roll is not appealable unless the applicant can demonstrate irreparable harm that an appeal could remedy. This principle underscores the importance of the criteria for appealability in urgent applications and the necessity for applicants to provide substantial evidence of potential harm.