About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1018
|
|
Dlodlo v Acting Chairperson Judicial Conduct Committee and Others (111031/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1018 (6 October 2025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 111031/24
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other
judges: No
3. Revised: Yes
Date: 6 October 2025
In
the matter between:
MOLEFE
RUFARO MTHULISI DLODLO
Applicant
and
ACTING
CHAIRPERSON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
First
Respondent
COMMITTEE
JUDICIAL
CONDUCT COMMITTEE
Second Respondent
JUDICIAL
SERVICES COMMISSION
Third Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL
JUDGMENT
ALLY
AJ
1.
This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment of this Court
on 21 August 2025. The application is opposed by
the Respondents.
2.
The parties were represented as in the hearing of the main
application heard by this Court, namely, by the Applicant in
person
and for the Respondents by Adv. L. Monthso-Moloisane SC.
3.
It has now
become trite that the test in applications for leave to appeal has
changed to one which is heightened
[1]
.
The Applicant is accordingly required to convince this Court that
another Court ‘would’ come to another conclusion.
The
Supreme Court of Appeal
[2]
has
stated the test to be as follows:
“
What
the test of reasonable prospects of success postulates is a
dispassionate decision, based on the facts and the law, that a
court
of appeal could reasonably arrive at a conclusion different to that
of the trial court. In order to succeed, therefore, the
appellant
must convince this court on proper grounds that he has prospects of
success on appeal and that those prospects are not
remote but have a
realistic chance of succeeding. More is required to be established
than that there is a mere possibility of success,
that the case is
arguable on appeal or that the case cannot be categorised as
hopeless. There must, in other words, be a sound,
rational basis for
the conclusion that there are prospects of success on appeal.”
4.
It
is appropriate to repeat the requirements for an application for
leave to appeal. Section 17 (1) of the Superior Courts Act
[3]
provides as follows:
‘’
Leave
to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are
of the opinion that-
(a)
(i)
the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success; or
(ii)
there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;
(b)
…
(c)
…”
5.
I have read and considered all the grounds of appeal as well as the
submissions of both the Applicant and Counsel for the
Respondents and
I remain unconvinced that another Court would come to a different
conclusion, the application thus has no reasonable
prospects of
success. Furthermore, there are no compelling reasons why leave to
appeal should be granted.
6.
In respect of the costs of this application, it is my view that the
norm that costs follow the result should apply and
the costs of
Counsel should be on Scale C.
7.
Accordingly, the following Order shall be issued:
a). the application
for leave to appeal is dismissed;
b). the Applicant
is to pay the Respondents costs on Scale C.
G
ALLY
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION
OF THE HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
Electronically
submitted therefore unsigned
Delivered:
This judgement 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
hand-down is deemed to be
6 October
2025
.
APPEARANCES
Attorneys
for the Applicant:
In person
molefedlodlo@gmail.com
Counsel
for the Respondents:
Advocate L. Montsho-Moloisane SC
Attorneys
for the Respondents:
State Attorney Johannesburg
10
th
Floor
North State Building
Johannesburg
CJossie@justice.gov.za
[1]
The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen 3 November 2014 (unreported
judgement LCC Case No: LCC14R/2014; The Acting National Director
of
Public Prosecution v Democratic Alliance (unreported case no:
19577/09 dated 24 June 2016); First Reality (Pty) Ltd v Mitchell
&
Others
2021 ZALCC 21
dated 23 August 2021 @ para 2
[2]
S v Smith
2012 (1) SACR 576
SCA @ para 7
[3]
10 of 2013, as amended