South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2017 >> [2017] ZAGPPHC 663

| Noteup | LawCite

MEC for Health and Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government v Mashilo and Another (70808/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 663 (6 October 2017)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

DATE: 06/10/2017

CASE NUMBER: 70808/15

REPORTABLE: NO

OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

In the matter between:

THE MEC FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

OF GAUTENG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT                                                       Applicant

and  

MASELI K MASHILO                                                                                 First Respondent

DR J JACOBS                                                                                      Second  Respondent

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

AC BASSON,J

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment delivered by this court on 14 July 2017. The applicant raises various grounds on which leave to appeal is sought and submitted that another court may come to a different conclusion from the conclusion reached by this court.

[2] I do not intend repeating all the grounds for leave to appeal. Suffice to point out that all the grounds have been considered. The parties have also furnished the court with detailed heads of argument dealing with each of the grounds for leave to appeal and have, in addition thereto, supplemented their heads of argument with oral argument in court.

[3] I have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and I am not persuaded that the intended appeal has reasonable prospects of success. In respect of the order as to costs I am likewise of the view that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospects of success.

[4] In the event the following order is made:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.

__________________

AC BASSON

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Appearances:


On behalf of the applicant:

Adv. Adv N Cassim SC

Adv H Mpshe

 

Instructed by: State Attorney

 

On behalf of the first respondent:

Adv. S Joubert SC

H Botha

Instructed by: Adel van der Walt Inc.

 

On behalf of the second respondent:

Adv.  J du Plessis SC

Instructed by: Serfontein Viljoen & Swart