Hoerskool Menlo Park School Governing Body v City Manager: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (Leave to Appeal) (26999/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1354 (10 December 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 1354 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Hoerskool Menlo Park School Governing Body v City Manager: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (Leave to Appeal) (26999/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1354 (10 December 2024) Hoerskool Menlo Park School Governing Body v City Manager: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (Leave to Appeal) (26999/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1354 (10 December 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_1354.html sino date 10 December 2024 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH.AFRICA IN THE HIGH C-OURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO.:26999/2022 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: NO DATE: 10 December 2024 E van der Schyff In the matter between: Hoerskool Menlo Park School Governing Body                      Applicant and The City Manager: City of Tshwane                                      First Respondent Metropolitan Municipality The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality                     Second Respondent The Chairperson: Municipal Planning Tribunal                      Third Respondent The Chairperson: The Appeal Authority of the                       Fourth Respondent City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality Optimprops 90 (Pty) Ltd                                                         Fifth Respondent JUDGMENT Van der Schyff J Introduction [1]      This is an application for leave to appeal. The applicant and the fifth respondent, respectively, apply for leave to appeal the judgment and order handed down by me on 18 October 2024. The applicant additionally filed a notice that it intends to apply for a cross-appeal against the fifth respondent's application for leave to appeal. The parties are referred to as in the main application. [2] Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 prescribes that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge concerned is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. [3]      If regard is had to the fifth respondent's application for leave to appeal, I am of the view that a compelling reason exists for the appeal to be heard. It would provide legal certainty if the Supreme Court of Appeal decides the issues raised in the fifth respondent's appeal. These issues revolve m inly around costs but cannot be determined without having regard to the merits of the application. This, in turn, constitutes a compelling reason for the applicant to be granted leave to appeal as sought in its application for leave to appeal. ORDER In the result, the following order is granted: 1.       The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the order dismissing the review application. 2.       The fifth respondent is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the costs order. 3.       The costs of both applications for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal. E van der Schyff Judge of the High Court Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. For the applicant: Adv. A Vorster Instructed by: Boshoff Incorporated For the fifth respondent: Adv. A Venter Instructed by: Ivan Pauw & Partners Attorneys Date of the hearing: 4 December 2024 Date of judgment: 10 December 2024 sino noindex make_database footer start