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 decision primarily addresses procedural matters regarding the appealability of an order removing a matter from the urgent roll.

Cases Cited

There are no key cases referenced in the judgment.

Legislation Cited

No specific legislation is cited in the judgment.

Rules of Court Cited

No rules of court are cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The judgment concerns an application for leave to appeal by Ms. Lenah Motlahabo Lebelo against a prior decision that removed her urgent application from the roll. The court found that the removal order was not appealable as the applicant failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm that could be remedied by an appeal.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include the appealability of an order removing a matter from the urgent roll and the requirement for the applicant to demonstrate irreparable harm.

Held

The court held that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

THE FACTS

Ms. Lenah Motlahabo Lebelo sought leave to appeal against a decision made on 20 May 2025, which removed her urgent application from the roll. The court had directed that each party would pay their own costs. The applicant contended that the removal of her application constituted a decision that warranted an appeal.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal question before the court was whether the order removing the urgent application from the roll was appealable. The court needed to determine if the applicant could establish the requisite irreparable harm that would justify an appeal.

ANALYSIS

In its analysis, the court emphasized that an order removing a matter from the urgent roll is not inherently appealable unless the applicant can demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm. The court noted that the purpose of the removal was to allow Ms. Lebelo to re-approach the urgent court with a clearer statement of her grounds for urgency. The court expressed confusion over the applicant's decision to seek leave to appeal instead of re-filing her application.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that each party would bear their own costs, reflecting the procedural nature of the case and the absence of any demonstrated harm.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment reinforces the principle that an order removing a matter from the urgent roll is not appealable unless the applicant can show that they will suffer irreparable harm. It also highlights the importance of clarity in urgent applications and the procedural rights of parties in such matters.