Gomwe and Tofield v Pick N Pay [2022] ZAGPJHC 729 (18 August 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 729 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Gomwe and Tofield v Pick N Pay [2022] ZAGPJHC 729 (18 August 2022) Gomwe and Tofield v Pick N Pay [2022] ZAGPJHC 729 (18 August 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2022_729.html sino date 18 August 2022 # # IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA # GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : 44832/2019 REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : NO REVISED DATE : 2022-08-18 In the matter between GOMWE AND TOFIELD                                                      Applicant and PICK N PAY                                                                         Respondent J U D G M E N T WEPENER , J : This is an application for leave to appeal in the interlocutory order issued by me recently regarding discovery. Until the Constitutional Court’s judgment in Tshwane City v AfriForum 2016 (6) SA 279 CC at paragraph 40 interlocutory orders of this nature were regarded as non-appealable. However, in that judgment the Court referred inter alia to the principles that were applicable up to that time and referred inter alia to Zweni v Minister of Law and Order of the Republic of South Africa 1993 (1) SA 523 (A) at 523(I) to 533(B). Having looked at the judgment of the Constitutional Court I am of the view that the well-established principles regarding appealability of such interlocutory orders were not thrown overboard, but only qualified by the words that the interest of justice should be served when such leave to appeal is sought. Although the test has therefore been widened in the Zweni judgment the well-established principles that led to the test of the interest of justice, as I have indicated have not been overruled. One such test is whether the judgment or order is dispositive of the main matter and I can add or substantially dispositive thereof, as was stated in Zweni. Of course, in this matter it is not so. It is purely a technical argument about the listing of documents. I have had regard to the original notice of motion and what relief was sought, the judgment given, as well as the heads of argument that served before me today. I am of the view that there is no interests of justice that will be served by granting leave to appeal or that another Court may come to a different decision. In the circumstances leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. WEPENER, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE : ………………… sino noindex make_database footer start