Shabangu and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (112621/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 196 (26 February 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 196 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Shabangu and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (112621/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 196 (26 February 2025) Shabangu and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (112621/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 196 (26 February 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_196.html sino date 26 February 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) Case no: 112621/24 (1)      REPORTABLE: YES /NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES /NO (3)      REVISED. DATE: 26 February 2025 Heard on: 25 February 2025 Judgment: 26 February 2025 In the matter between: DUMISA LEONARD                                                                  FIRST APPLICANT SHABANGU DL SHABANGU INCORPORATED                                      SECOND APPLICANT ATTORNEYS AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE                                   RESPONDENT COUNCIL JUDGMENT STRIJDOM, J 1.       In this matter the applicants apply for leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division against the whole of my judgment and order dated 23 January 2025, granting the application brought by the respondent. 2.       The application for leave to appeal is opposed by the respondent. 3.       The grounds of appeal are set out in the application for leave to appeal. I do not intend to repeat same. 4. Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 provides that leave to appeal may only be granted where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or if there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard including conflicting Judgments on the matter under consideration. 5.       With the enactment of section 17 of the Act, the test has now obtained statutory force and is to be applied using the word "would" in deciding whether to grant leave. In other words, the test is "would another Court come to a different decision." 6.       It is now trite that an appellant faces a higher and stringent threshold in terms of the Act. The use of the word "would" in the new statute indicates a measure of certainty that another Court will differ from the Court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against. 7.       In respect of the application for leave to appeal against the whole of my judgment, the applicants raised as grounds a challenge to every finding made in the judgment. The argument on this aspect was essentially a re-presentation of that which was advanced during the main application, and which was dealt with in the Judgment. 8.       I have considered the grounds upon which this application for leave to appeal has been brought and the arguments advanced by the parties at the hearing. I have also considered the reasons for my judgment on the main application and am of the view that there is neither a reasonable prospect that another Court would come to a different conclusion nor an arguable point of law or other compelling reason which merits the granting of leave to appeal 9.       In the circumstances, it is ordered that: 9.1     The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. JJ STRIJDOM JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH-AFRICA, GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA APPEARANCES: For the applicants: Adv BL Shabangu Instructed by: Ledwaba Mazwai Attorneys For the respondent: Adv JM Moolman Instructed by: Damons Magardie Richardson Attorneys sino noindex make_database footer start