South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town >> 2011 >> [2011] ZAWCHC 243

| Noteup | LawCite

Palazollo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (4731/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 243 (27 May 2011)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format

Bookmark/share this page

Bookmark and Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)



CASE NUMBER: 4731/2010

DATE: 27 MAY 2011



In the matter between:

VITO ROBERTO PALAZZOLO …...........................................................Applicant


and

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND

CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ….........................................1st Respondent


THE FORMER MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
…........................................2nd Respondent


THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL: JUSTICE

AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT …................................3rd Respondent

THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

PROSECUTION ….......................................................................4th Respondent




JUDGMENT

Application for Leave to Appeal




FOURIE. J:



The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against that part of our judgment handed down on 14 April 2011, which relates to the order dismissing the relief which was sought in terms of paragraph 6.1 to 6.5 of the Notice of Motion, including the costs order made by us.



The grounds on which the application is brought are set out fully in the application for leave to appeal dated 21 April 2011. The application is opposed.



It is trite that the test in determining whether leave to appeal should be granted is two-fold, firstly, whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding and, secondly, whether or not the case is of substantial importance to the parties involved.



Although I am satisfied that our judgment is correct, the matter is of such a nature that I do not believe that the prospect of another court coming to a different conclusion, can be excluded.



In addition, it is clear that the matter is of extreme importance to both parties and even to other parties who may be involved extradition proceedings. It can also be said that the general public has an interest in the outcome of the matter. In these circumstances, I believe that the application should be granted.

In the result the applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against that part of our judgment handed down on 14 April 2011, which relates to the order dismissing the relief which was sought in terms of paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 of applicant's Notice of Motion as well as the costs order made by us. The costs of the application for leave to appeal, are to be costs in the appeal.

FOURIE.

YEKISO. J: I agree

YEKISO. J