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 309
|
|
Mahlatse v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2024-052069) [2026] ZAGPPHC 309 (1 April 2026)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2024-052069
(1)
REPORTABLE:
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
DATE
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
MAHLATSE
ERNEST MODULA
Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS
First Respondent
SECRETARY
FOR DEFENCE
Second
Respondent
CHIEF OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
NATIONAL
DEFENCE FORCE
Third Respondent
ADJUTANT
GENERAL MAJOR GENERAL, E MNISI
Fourth Respondent
THE
MILITARY OMBUDSMAN
Fifth 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
14 January 2026.
[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 14 January
2026.
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. On 16 March 2026, before the hearing of the
application
the attorney for the applicant withdrew as attorney as
record. At the hearing the applicant appeared in person on 23 March
2026.
[5]
At the hearing of the application I enquired from the applicant what
precisely is
the grounds of appeal. The applicant was also presented
with an opportunity to file heads of argument on any point if he felt
the
need therefore after argument.
[6]
The following grounds were submitted:
6.1
Paragraphs 1 - 10 of the application for leave to appeal raises
issues with the term minority
and majority judgment, it is argued
that there cannot be a two judgments as the rules do not provide for
same;
6.2
Paragraphs 12 – 22 of the application for leave to appeal
states that the Court made
an error in fact by finding that the
applicant’s contract of employment expired as there was a
pending extension received;
6.3
Paragraphs 23 – 25 takes issue with the memorandum of Brigadier
Gen Myburgh, as the
Brigadier is not the Court of Military Appeals;
6.4
Paragraphs 26 – 29 states that the Court made an error in
finding that the Fifth Respondent
would still not have any
jurisdiction to adjudicate any complaint.
[7]
First, the issue surrounding the terminology of the judgment of the
CMA is dealt with
paragraph 10 of the Judgment handed down on 14
January 2026 and raises no new argument.
[8]
Second, the fact remains that nothing came of this extension and the
employment contract
had in fact expired.
[9]
Further, prayer one of the notice of motion cannot be granted by this
Court as in
law the fifth respondent could not consider the complaint
for the reasons already stated in the Judgment of 14 January 2026.
The
first prayer three, is linked to prayer one, and accordingly
cannot be granted for the same reasons.
[10]
Prayer two seeks that the Court reinstate the applicant,
retrospectively, from 13 December 2017
to date, without any valid
underlying employment contract. As set out in the judgment of 14
January 2026 there is no factual base
presented for granting this
relief. The second prayer three, is linked to prayer two, and
accordingly cannot be granted for the
same reasons.
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 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:
23.03.2025
Date of Judgment:
1.04.2026
Counsel for Applicant:
In person
Counsel for
Respondents: Adv F Storm