Chiloane v Jordaan and Another (B854/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 168 (27 February 2024)

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 >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 168 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Chiloane v Jordaan and Another (B854/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 168 (27 February 2024) Chiloane v Jordaan and Another (B854/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 168 (27 February 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_168.html sino date 27 February 2024 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: B854/2023 REPORTABLE OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED DATE: 27/02/2024 In the matter between: KATE MOGAU CHILOANE APPLICANT And PHILIP JORDAAN FIRST RESPONDENT GODFREY CHILOANE SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL Van der Schyff J Introduction [1] A written judgment was handed down on 22 January 2024. On 24 January 2024, the applicant drafted the notice of application for leave to appeal. The following grounds of appeal are raised: i. The court erred in not affording Ms. Chiloane the opportunity to seek legal representation; ii. The court erred in finding that the first respondent sufficiently investigated the allegations that the second respondent owns additional immovable properties; iii. The court erred in finding that the ‘first respondent’s exclusion of the transactions made by the second respondent in the subsistence of the marriage was correct’; iv. The court erred in relying on M v M ; v. The court erred in finding that all the stolen assets were included in the inventory. [2] The aspects raised as grounds of appeal are the aspects that the applicant raised in the initial application. The court was bound to decide the application on the papers as filed. Since the applicant was represented by pro bono legal representatives who availed themselves at the court’s request when the papers were drafted, the applicant had sufficient and ample time to place her case properly before the court. [3] I am of the view that, on the evidence before the court, the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and that another court would not come to a different conclusion. Since a written judgment was handed down, it is not necessary to deal with the reasons for the judgment in any detail herein. ORDER In the result, the following order is granted: 1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. E van der Schyff Judge of the High Court Delivered:  This judgement is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. It will be emailed to the parties/their legal representatives as a courtesy gesture. For the applicant: In person For the first respondent: Adv. L. Pearce Instructed by: FA Steyn Attorneys Date of the hearing: 21 February 2024 Date of judgment: 27 February 2024 sino noindex make_database footer start