Sabeeha v Ali (2023/062743) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1220 (15 November 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 1220 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Sabeeha v Ali (2023/062743) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1220 (15 November 2024) Sabeeha v Ali (2023/062743) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1220 (15 November 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_1220.html sino date 15 November 2024 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2023-062743 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED. In the matter between: ESSOP SABEEHA APPLICANT And HAFFEJEE ZIYAAD ASHRAF ALI RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MABESELE J: [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of my judgement and order. The judgement and order was granted in favor of the respondent due to persuasive argument by the respondent’s Counsel that, since the marriage between the applicant and respondent was dissolved by the issuance of a Talaq, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain rule 43 application. The applicant’s counsel, who received a brief on the eleventh hour to argue the applicant’s case, was unable to persuade me otherwise. [2]  The applicant’s attorney has raised important issues, both in his grounds for leave to appeal and during argument. He substantiated his argument with relevant case law. Regrettably, some of these issues were not raised by his predecessor during rule 43 application. In any event the respondent’s counsel argued, rightly, that rule 43 orders are not appealable. In this regard, she sought reliance on numerous cases, including the Constitutional Court judgement of S V S and Another 2019(6) SA 1(CC) and Section 16(3) of the Superior Court Act 10 of 2013. Having considered the argument and submissions made by both counsel, I come to the following conclusion. 1. Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including the costs of counsel on scale B. M.M MABESELE (Judge of the High Court Gauteng Local Division) Appearances On behalf of the Applicant: Mr S Dollie From: Shaheed Dollie Inc. Attorneys On behalf of the Respondent: Adv. A Saldulker Instructed by: N. Moola Incorporated Date of Hearing: 14 November 2024 Date of Judgment: 15 November 2024 sino noindex make_database footer start