africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2023] ZAGPJHC 28South Africa

Dlodlo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (16306/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 28 (19 January 2023)

High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
19 January 2023
OTHER J, OF J, DLAMINI J, Dlamini J, Matojane J, Motojane J, Adv AJ, the parties

Judgment

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 28 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Dlodlo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (16306/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 28 (19 January 2023) Dlodlo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (16306/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 28 (19 January 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_28.html sino date 19 January 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 16306/2022 REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO REVISED 19 JANUARY 2023 In the matter between: MOLEFE RUFARO MTHULISI DLODLO                                 Appellant and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT                                      1st Respondent THE RULES BOARD FOR COURTS OF LAW 2 nd Respondent Coram: Dlamini J Date of hearing: 24 November 2022 – in a ‘virtual Hearing’ during a videoconference on Microsoft Teams digital platform. Date of delivery of reasons: 19 January  2022 This judgment is deemed to have been delivered electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives via email and shall be uploaded onto the caselines system. JUDGMENT DLAMINI J [1]        This an application for leave to appeal my judgment that I handed down on 19 October   2022. [2]        It is common cause that when the matter came before me, the parties agreed that only the point in limine of res judica should be argued as this will the effect of disposing the matter without dealing with the merits thereof. [3]        The numb of the issue was whether Judge Motojane had already made a ruling dismissing a similar application seeking the same ordes against the same parties under case number 2018/ 16715. Justice Matojane dismissed this application with a punitive costs order. Instead of appealing Matojane J’s order, the applicant brought the same application before me under a different case number. [4]        It is trite that for an application for leave to appeal to be successful it is required of the parties seeking such leave to demonstrate that there are reasonable prospects that another Court will come to a different conclusion to that reached in the judgment that is sought to be taken on appeal. [5]        The provisions of section 17 of the Supreme Court Act has now elevated the test to be applied for granting of leave to appeal. The use of the word “would” when considering the prospects of success in section 17 (1)(a)(i) , now imposes a more stringent and vigorous threshold. [6]        I have read the heads of argument and heard and submissions  both parties . [7]        It is my considered view there is no ambiguity in  Motojane J’s judgment ,unless it is reviewed, appealed and set aside, the judgment remains valid and should be  followed. It is therefore impermissilble for the applicant, to enroll the same application under a different case number instead of appealing Matojane’s order. For all the reasons stated above and in my judgment, I make the following order: ORDER The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs DLAMINI J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Date of hearing:                24 November  2022 Delivered:                         19 January  2023 For the Applicants:           Adv AJ Venter Email: ajventer@law.co.za Instructed by: Martins Weir-Smith For theRespondent : SG Dos Santos Email: suzydsantos@gmail.com Instructed by: James Bush sino noindex make_database footer start

Similar Cases

Dlodlo v Minster of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (16306/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 807 (19 October 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 807High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
Dlodlo v Acting Chairperson Judicial Conduct Committee and Others (111031/24) [2025] ZAGPJHC 846 (21 August 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 846High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
Dlodlo v Acting Chairperson Judicial Conduct Committee and Others (111031/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1018 (6 October 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1018High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
Dladla v Ndhlovu and Others (2022-13299) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1019 (11 September 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1019High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Dladla and Others v CNG Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (37732/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 816 (18 July 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 816High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar

Discussion