Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Magogodela Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Archibald Mongwana
    Leave to appeal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Magogodela Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Archibald Mongwana
    0 views4 pages
    Leave to appeal

    Original Title

    Magogodela-Appeal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Leave to appeal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    0 views4 pages

    Magogodela Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Archibald Mongwana
    Leave to appeal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

    LIMPOPO DIVISION, THOHOYANDOU

    Case no:

    In the matter between:

    NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC Appellant

    PROSECUTION

    And

    MAANO MMBANGISENI MAGOGODELA Respondent

    NOTICE OF APPEAL

    BE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE that the abovementioned Appellant hereby

    notes an appeal to the Full Bench of the above Honourable Court against the

    whole of the judgment, including the costs order, handed down by His

    Lordship, Mr Justice Makhafola on the 23rd of October 2018.

    The findings of facts and/or rulings of law appealed against, and the grounds

    upon which the appeal is founded, are set out below.


    2

    1. The Court a quo erred in finding that the answering affidavit deposed

    to by Mr Tshingwala was defective in that:

    1.1. The attorney failed, as a deponent, to state where his

    personal knowledge of the facts emanates from, as it was

    correctly argued that he was not involved in the trial.

    1.2. He does not even aver that he had an inside knowledge of the

    trial file, or had, at some stage, consulted with the members of

    the Respondent/Defendant.

    2. The Court a quo erred in not distinguishing the facts of this matter

    with that of Raphael’s case, which dicta the Court subscribed.

    3. The Court a quo erred in finding that the Respondent established the

    requirements as set out in section 18 of the Superior Courts act no.

    10 of 2013 in that:

    3.1. exceptional circumstances exist in that the Respondent needs

    money to attend psychotherapy sessions;

    3.2. the irreparable harm to the Respondent is apparent in that if

    the execution application is not granted, the psychotherapy

    sessions recommended by the psychotherapist will not be

    attended by the Respondent.


    3

    3.3. the Appellant’s financial loss can be compensated,

    alternatively cured by a monetary claim in the Court, the

    decision is fact bound.

    4. The Court a quo erred in not finding that the Respondent can receive

    adequate psychotherapy treatment from state institutions for free or at

    a nominal cost.

    5. The Court a quo erred in making a finding regarding the application

    for leave to appeal as the Court was not called to make a

    determination in this regard.

    6. The Court a quo erred in finding that the Court has read the entire

    contents of exhibit “MN” closely. Nowhere do instructions to appeal

    complain about the wrongfulness of the Court’s finding on facts and

    law, except to prevent the judgment from becoming a bad precedent.

    7. The Court a quo erred in finding that it can be gleamed from

    paragraph 1 of exhibit “MN” that Mr Hoffmeyer does not possess the

    transcribed record and the Court’s judgment except a copy of the

    Court Order. This explains the reason why the application for leave to

    appeal was enrolled with the Registrar and a date was sought from

    the Judge in a haste. The facts of the main case are peculiar and

    cannot be decided in the context of any decided cases on facts. The

    application of the principles of law depends on facts in each case.


    4

    8. It is submitted, on behalf of the Appellant, that there are reasonable

    prospects that the Full Bench of the Honourable Court will come to a

    different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Court a quo.

    KINDLY PLACE THE MATTER ON THE ROLL ACCORDINGLY.

    DATED at THOHOYANDOU on this the day of NOVEMBER 2018

    STATE ATTORNEY, THOHOYANDOU


    Attorneys for the Appellant
    High Court Building
    THOHOYANDOU
    Tel: (015) 962-2633
    Fax: (015) 962-0049
    Ref: 235/16/SD
    e-mail: [email protected]

    TO:

    The Registrar of the


    Above Honourable Court
    THOHOYANDOU

    AND TO:

    MAUNGEDZO ATTORNEYS
    Attorneys for Respondent
    Office No 12, Bindulavhathu Building
    Behind CTM Store
    THOHOYANDOU
    Tel: (015) 962-4922
    Fax: (015) 962-4952
    Ref: seng/magogodela/03/2018
    RECEIVED COPY HEREOF ON
    THIS THE DAY OF
    NOVEMBER 2018

    For Attorneys for Respondent

    You might also like