1
UDI CP
YMED
Ke, & vy \4
Zz\ XN y s
\s3) NS er 77 [s)
rN [NED gS
COF sous
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3) REVISED.
2025-07-17
DATE SIGNA
ee
Case Number: 2025-068106
In the matter between:
YOLANDA CHARLOTTE ZANA Applicant
and
MUNYARADZI JUSTIN GWANZURA Respondent
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and
is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives
by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The
date for handing down is deemed to be 17 July 2025.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeSSSSSSSSFSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
a
2
POTTERILL J
[1] On the grounds of appeal relating to the urgency of the matter and lis pendens
no other court would reasonably come to another conclusion and the application for
leave to appeal on these grounds are dismissed.
[2] On the ground raised that the Court erred in finding that the relocation was
reasonable because the respondent had permanent employment the leave to appeal
is dismissed. The proof of employment was proven and there was no evidence to the
contrary. No other Court will come to another conclusion.
[3] The ground that the Court could not make a decision without a family advocate
report is dismissed as no other court would reasonably come to another conclusion.
Both parents are fit parents, the primary care was by agreement between the parties
with the respondent. The applicant had put no evidence before the Court as to what
contact she had with the child for the last 7 months. The main contention that the view
of the child should have been presented through the family advocate was dismissed.
A 4'/2 year old is not of the age and maturity to give a view.
[4] The fact that the Court applied the Plascon-Evans rule is dismissed. The
applicant's own contention in the heads of argument is that the test must not be applied
“rigidly”. The test was not applied rigidly. No other Court will come to another
conclusion. If the application of the Plascon-Evans rule has resulted in conflicting
judgments then the appeal should have been brought in terms of section 17(1)(2)
“there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.” It was however brought
under a misdirection by the Court.
[5] The following order is made:
3
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
os. or
JUDGE OF URT