Lebelo v First National Bank (143809/24) [2026] ZAGPPHC 419 (5 May 2026)

35 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Costs order — Applicant sought leave to appeal against costs order following striking of urgent application from roll — Grounds for appeal included urgency of application and financial hardship — Court held that appeal did not have reasonable prospect of success and dismissed application for leave to appeal with costs.

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 143809/24
(1) REPORTABLE: 0
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JU
(3) REVISED: :YES
5 May 2026
DATE
In the matter between:
LENAH MOTLAHABO LEBELO
and
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
Applicant
Respondent
JUDGMENT

2

JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J

Introduction
[1] On 9 January 2026, this court struck the ur gent application brought by the
applicant from the urgent roll due to a lack of urgency with costs.
[2] The applicant applies for leave to appeal the costs order.
Grounds of leave to appeal
[3] The applicant’s application is premised on the following grounds:
3.1 the application has been urgent for a long time;
3.2 the applicant is in dire need of funds; and
3.3 the applicant is not in a financial position to pay the costs.
Legal framework
[4] Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013, regulates applications for leave
to appeal, and the relevant portion reads as follows:
“17. (1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned
are of the opinion that—
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or..”
[5] The circumstances under which a court of appeal will interfere with the cost order
of a lower court are very limited and were summarised in Jacob G Zuma v The
Office of the Public Prosecutor and Others (1447/2018) [2020] ZASCA 138 (30
October 2020) at para [20] as follows:
“[20]……Interference is warranted only where the discretion was not exercised
judicially; the decision was influenced by wrong principles; the decision was
affected by a misdirection on the facts; or the decision could not reasonably have
been reached by a court properly directing itself to the relevant facts and

principles. It is not sufficient on appeal against a costs order simply to show that
the lower court's order was wrong."
Discussion
[6] Bearing the aforesaid test in mind and having had regard to the grounds of
appeal relied upon by the applicant, I am of the view that the appeal against the
cost order does not have a reasonable prospect of success.
ORDER
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fees on
scale B.
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
DATE OF HEARING : 23 April 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT 5 May 2026
APPEARANCES
Applicant: In person
Counsel for the respondent: SG Webster
Instructed by : Kim Calvert Inc
3

4