Republic of Mozambique v Forum De Monitoria Do Orcamento and Others (40441/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 495 (27 July 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPJHC 495 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Republic of Mozambique v Forum De Monitoria Do Orcamento and Others (40441/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 495 (27 July 2022) Republic of Mozambique v Forum De Monitoria Do Orcamento and Others (40441/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 495 (27 July 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2022_495.html sino date 27 July 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) Case no. 40441/2021 REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO REVISED 27 July 2022 In the application for leave to appeal between: REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE Applicant and FORUM DE MONITORIA DO ORÇAMENTO First Respondent MANUAL CHANG Second Respondent MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Third Respondent DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Fourth Respondent HELEN SUZMAN FOUNDATION Fifth Respondent DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT Sixth Respondent OF HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS Seventh Respondent LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT [1]        The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against prayers 1 and 2 of the order given by me on 10 November 2021. The first and fifth respondents oppose the application. The first respondent abides the decision of this Court. [2]        I granted the following relief: Order 1.   The decision by the second respondent on or about 23 August 2021, to extradite the first respondent to the Republic of Mozambique, is declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution of South Africa 1996, and is invalid and set aside. 2.    The decision of the second respondent on 21 May 2019 is substituted with the following: “ Mr Manuel Chang is to be surrendered and extradited to the United States of America to stand trial for his alleged offences in the United States of America, as contained in the extradition request, dated 28 January 2019. [3]        On 15 December 2021, the applicant applied for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court. The application was dismissed with costs and the Constitutional Court found that it was not in the interests of justice to hear the case at that stage. [4]        The Minister did not oppose the relief or support the relief sought in the Constitutional Court. The same applies in this application for leave to appeal [5]        The applicant in its Notice of Appeal has relied upon section 17(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 . Section 17(1)(a) provides: “ Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that- (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or (ii)        there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;” [6]        I have considered the submissions made by all the parties. I find that the applicant has not presented any compelling reasons why the applicant should be granted leave to appeal. Furthermore the appeal does not have a reasonable prospect of success in a higher court. [7]         In the result the applicant for leave to appeal is refused. THE ORDER (1) Leave to appeal is refused. (2) The applicant shall bear the costs of the application for leave to appeal in respect of the First Respondent including the costs of two counsel and the costs of the Fifith Respondent. VICTOR, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION DATE : 27 JULY 2022 Counsel for the Applicant                                        Adv W Mokari SC Attorney for the Applicant                                        Mabunda Incorporated govm@mabundainc.com Counsel for the 1 st Respondent                             Adv M de Plessis SC Adv E Cohen Attorney for 1 st Respondent                                    Ian Levitt Attorneys ian@ianlevitt.co.za Counsel for Fifth Respondent                                 Adv Pudifin –Jones Adv T. Palmer Attorney for Fifth Respondent                                 Attorney Webber Wentzel Vlad.movshovich@webberwentzel.com sino noindex make_database footer start