Leloko Hartbeespoortdam Association NPC v Tsineng and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2022/24191) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1090 (6 October 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 1090 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Leloko Hartbeespoortdam Association NPC v Tsineng and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2022/24191) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1090 (6 October 2025) Leloko Hartbeespoortdam Association NPC v Tsineng and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2022/24191) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1090 (6 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1090.html sino date 6 October 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case Number: 2022/24191 (1)      REPORTABLE: NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)      REVISED: NO DATE: 3/10/25 SIGNATURE In the matter between: LELOKO HARTBEESPOORTDAM ASSOCIATION NPC Applicant and TUMELO SOPHIA TSINENG First Respondent COMMUNITY SCHEMES OMBUD SERVICE Second Respondent MAMIKI MUTLANENG N.O. Third Respondent Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e-mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 6 October 2025 JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL MYBURGH, AJ [1]      The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment which I handed down in this matter on 15 March 2024. [2]      For such an application to succeed, the applicant is required to demonstrate either that it has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, or that there is some other compelling reason why leave should be granted. [3]      Although the applicant's heads of argument made mention of both grounds, I was unable to understand the precise nature of the other compelling reasons contended for, nor was I able to discern one. It is accordingly not necessary to say anything further in that regard. [4]      Turning to the prospects of success, the main argument advanced on behalf of the applicant was, as I understood it, that the third respondent had exceeded her powers in granting the relief which she ordered. In my view, that argument was misdirected - this, essentially for reasons canvassed in my judgment. [5]      I am accordingly of the view that the application falls short of what is required and accordingly make the following order: Order [6]      The application is dismissed with costs. G S MYBURGH ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances: For the Applicant:    J De Beer SC instructed by A J Van Rensburg Inc For the First Respondent: M De Meyer instructed by Van Wyk Inc Date of hearing: 19 March 2025 Date of judgment: 6 October 2025 sino noindex make_database footer start