Dlodlo v Acting Chairperson Judicial Conduct Committee and Others (111031/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1018 (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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 1018 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Dlodlo v Acting Chairperson Judicial Conduct Committee and Others (111031/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1018 (6 October 2025) Dlodlo v Acting Chairperson Judicial Conduct Committee and Others (111031/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1018 (6 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1018.html sino date 6 October 2025 ###### IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 111031/24 1. Reportable:  No 2. Of interest to other judges: No 3. Revised: Yes Date: 6 October 2025 In the matter between: MOLEFE RUFARO MTHULISI DLODLO Applicant and ACTING CHAIRPERSON JUDICIAL CONDUCT                First Respondent COMMITTEE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE                                    Second Respondent JUDICIAL SERVICES COMMISSION                                  Third Respondent LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT ALLY AJ 1.  This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment of this Court on 21 August 2025. The application is opposed by the Respondents. 2.  The parties were represented as in the hearing of the main application heard by this Court, namely, by the Applicant in person and for the Respondents by Adv. L. Monthso-Moloisane SC. 3. It has now become trite that the test in applications for leave to appeal has changed to one which is heightened [1] . The Applicant is accordingly required to convince this Court that another Court ‘would’ come to another conclusion. The Supreme Court of Appeal [2] has stated the test to be as follows: “ What the test of reasonable prospects of success postulates is a dispassionate decision, based on the facts and the law, that a court of appeal could reasonably arrive at a conclusion different to that of the trial court. In order to succeed, therefore, the appellant must convince this court on proper grounds that he has prospects of success on appeal and that those prospects are not remote but have a realistic chance of succeeding. More is required to be established than that there is a mere possibility of success, that the case is arguable on appeal or that the case cannot be categorised as hopeless. There must, in other words, be a sound, rational basis for the conclusion that there are prospects of success on appeal.” 4. It is appropriate to repeat the requirements for an application for leave to appeal. Section 17 (1) of the Superior Courts Act [3] provides as follows: ‘’ Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that- (a) (i)  the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success; or (ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration; (b) … (c) …” 5.  I have read and considered all the grounds of appeal as well as the submissions of both the Applicant and Counsel for the Respondents and I remain unconvinced that another Court would come to a different conclusion, the application thus has no reasonable prospects of success. Furthermore, there are no compelling reasons why leave to appeal should be granted. 6.  In respect of the costs of this application, it is my view that the norm that costs follow the result should apply and the costs of Counsel should be on Scale C. 7.  Accordingly, the following Order shall be issued: a).  the application for leave to appeal is dismissed; b).  the Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs on Scale C. G ALLY ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG Electronically submitted therefore unsigned Delivered:  This judgement 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 email 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 . APPEARANCES Attorneys for the Applicant: In person molefedlodlo@gmail.com Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate L. Montsho-Moloisane SC Attorneys for the Respondents: State Attorney Johannesburg 10 th Floor North State Building Johannesburg CJossie@justice.gov.za [1] The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen 3 November 2014 (unreported judgement LCC Case No: LCC14R/2014; The Acting National Director of Public Prosecution v Democratic Alliance (unreported case no: 19577/09 dated 24 June 2016); First Reality (Pty) Ltd v Mitchell & Others 2021 ZALCC 21 dated 23 August 2021 @ para 2 [2] S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 576 SCA @ para 7 [3] 10 of 2013, as amended sino noindex make_database footer start