Leloko Hartbeespoortdam Association NPC v Tsineng and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2022/24191) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1090 (6 October 2025)

28 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal against judgment — Applicant required to demonstrate reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason for leave — Argument regarding exceeding powers by third respondent deemed misdirected — Application dismissed with costs.

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 1090
|

|

Leloko Hartbeespoortdam Association NPC v Tsineng and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2022/24191) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1090 (6 October 2025)

REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case
Number: 2022/24191
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
DATE:
3/10/25
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
LELOKO
HARTBEESPOORTDAM ASSOCIATION NPC
Applicant
and
TUMELO
SOPHIA TSINENG
First Respondent
COMMUNITY
SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE
Second
Respondent
MAMIKI
MUTLANENG N.O.
Third Respondent
Delivered:
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 e-mail 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
JUDGMENT:
LEAVE TO APPEAL
MYBURGH,
AJ
[1]
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment which I
handed down in this matter on
15 March 2024.
[2]
For such an application to succeed, the applicant is required to
demonstrate either that it has
a reasonable prospect of success on
appeal, or that there is some other compelling reason why leave
should be granted.
[3]
Although the applicant's heads of argument made mention of both
grounds, I was unable to understand
the precise nature of the other
compelling reasons contended for, nor was I able to discern one. It
is accordingly not necessary
to say anything further in that regard.
[4]
Turning to the prospects of success, the main argument advanced on
behalf of the applicant was,
as I understood it, that the third
respondent had exceeded her powers in granting the relief which she
ordered. In my view, that
argument was misdirected - this,
essentially for reasons canvassed in my judgment.
[5]
I am accordingly of the view that the application falls short of what
is required and accordingly
make the following order:
Order
[6]
The application is dismissed with costs.
G
S MYBURGH
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances:
For
the Applicant:    J De Beer SC instructed by A J Van
Rensburg Inc
For
the First Respondent: M De Meyer instructed by Van Wyk Inc
Date
of hearing: 19 March 2025
Date
of judgment: 6 October 2025