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
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 332
|
|
Keele v Jansen Van Rensburg and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2021-64337) [2026] ZAGPPHC 332 (13 March 2026)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2021-64337
(1)
REPORTABLE:
(2) OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3) REVISED:
DATE 13/03/2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
DR.
MOTHOBI GODFREY
KEELE
Applicant
and
MAGISTRATE
MRS. JANINE JANSEN VAN RENSBURG
First Respondent
DR.
MBALI ZAMATHIYANE
KEELE
Second Respondent
TAXING MASTER, HIGH COURT
(Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
Third Respondent
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL
THIS JUDGMENT IS HANDED DOWN
REMOTELY AND WILL BE CIRCULATED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY.
WELGEMOED,
AJ
Introduction and background
[1] This is
an application for leave to appeal to the Full Bench of the Gauteng
Division of the High Court
Pretoria, against the whole of the
judgment and order, including the costs order, granted against the
applicant by this Court on
17 December 2025.
[2] The
applicant contends that there are reasonable prospects that another
court would come to a different
conclusion and that there are other
compelling reasons why an appeal should be heard, as contemplated in
section 17(1)(a)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
.
[3] The facts
of the matter are not contentious and dealt with in the judgment
handed down on 17 December
2025.
The grounds of appeal
[4]
The grounds of appeal are set out in the applicant’s
application for leave to
appeal. This Court must first note that the
application itself is lengthy and not to the point. The application
lacks precision,
coherence and fails to clearly specify and outline
the grounds of appeal.
[5]
At the hearing of the application I enquired from the applicant, who
appeared in person,
what precisely the grounds of appeal were;
[6]
The following ground(s) were submitted:
6.1
The main issue in this application, is whether the late filing of the
answering affidavit
was to be allowed;
[7]
First, the Court allowed the late filing of the answering affidavit,
the late filing
of the replying affidavit and the late filing of the
applicant’s heads of argument in the interest of justice, in
order to
bring finality to the application. These preliminary issues
were dealt with when the matter was called on 24 November 2025 and
stood down to be heard on 27 November 2025.
[8]
There was accordingly no prejudice to any party in advancing their
case when the matter
was argued. I am also not aware of any cases
where leave to appeal was granted after a court
a quo
allowed
the late filing of affidavits where no prejudice was to be suffered
by any party.
[9]
Accordingly the argument raised about condonation being granted has
no merit.
[10]
Furtherr, the applicant failed to show that the court committed any
factual or legal errors in
its judgment.
Conclusion
[11] In
conclusion, I am not persuaded that the applicant has shown that
there are reasonable prospects
of success on appeal and that another
court would come to a different conclusion. Secondly, the applicant
has failed to satisfy
the court that there are reasonable prospects
of success in the appeal as required by
section 17(1)(a)(i)
and/or
(ii) of the Act. The application for leave to appeal thus ought to be
dismissed with costs.
[12]
Concerning the costs, the rule that costs follow the
result must clearly apply.
[13]
In the result, I make the following order:
1.
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed with costs on Scale B;
WELGEMOED CJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of Hearing: 11.03.2026
Date
of Judgment: 13.03.2026
Counsel for Applicant: In
person
Counsel for Respondent: KKM Mafungo