South African Medical Association NPC v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (2020/21526) [2022] ZAGPPHC 895 (14 November 2022)

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 >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPPHC 895 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## South African Medical Association NPC v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (2020/21526) [2022] ZAGPPHC 895 (14 November 2022) South African Medical Association NPC v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (2020/21526) [2022] ZAGPPHC 895 (14 November 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_895.html sino date 14 November 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 2020/21526 REPORT ABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO REVISED. 14 NOVEMBER 2022 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION NPC              Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TRADE UNION                                                                     1st Respondent GERHARD VOSLOO N.O.                                                   2nd Respondent DR CEDRIC SIPHAMANDLA SIHLANGU                            3rd Respondent DR TSHILIDZI ORECIOUS SADIKI                                      4th Respondent DR NKATEKO G MNISI                                                        5th Respondent DR MALOSE MARAKALALA                                                6th Respondent DR JOHANNE M MKHABELA                                              7 1h Respondent LEAVE TO APPEAL MOKOSE J [1] The first to seventh respondents (referred to as the applicants in this application for leave to appeal) have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal alternatively, the Full Court of this division against the order I delivered on 19 May 2020 under case number 21526/2020. [2] The applicants seek leave to appeal on several grounds as stated in their application for leave to appeal. Counsel for the applicants addressed the court on the salient points raised in the application. These points were opposed by counsel for the respondent on the grounds that I have reasoned out well in my judgment. Furthermore, submissions were made that there are no prospects that another court would have come to a different conclusion. [3] The test for granting an application for leave to appeal is whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would have come to a different conclusion. Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ("the Act") states that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge or judges are of the opinion that: (a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or (ii) for some other compelling reason it should be heard, including conflicting judgements on the matter under consideration; (b) the decision sought does not fall within the ambit of Section 16(2)(a) of the Act; and (c) where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties. [4] The test laid down in Section 17 of the Act is now a subjective one and no longer an objective test. There must be a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against. [1] [5] I had dealt in depth with all the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my judgement. After listening to submissions by both counsel for the applicants and counsel for the respondent and after reading the application for leave to appeal, I am of the view that there are no prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion. (6) Accordingly, the following order is granted: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. MOKOSE J A 20 August 2020 (Revised on 14 November 2022) [1] The Mont Cheveaux Trust (IT2012/28) v Tina Goosen & 18 Others (unreported judgment deliver on 3 November 2014) sino noindex make_database footer start