The High Court considered an application for leave to appeal against an earlier refusal of urgent interdictory relief concerning a planned public auction of six municipal properties. The court said the auction had already taken place, found no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different outcome, and refused leave to appeal with attorney and client costs.
This appears to concern leave to appeal, mootness, urgent interdicts, and costs in a dispute over the sale of municipal immovable property.
Evidence from source
The application is dismissed. 2. Leave to appeal is refused. 3. Applicant must pay the first respondent’s attorney and client costs.
Supports: Summary claim that leave to appeal was refused and costs were ordered.
the auction has been held and finalised. Irrespective of any other considerations regarding the grant of leave to appeal or otherwise, in the context of appeals, this court will not consider issues that are of academic interest only.
Supports: Summary claim that the auction had already taken place and the matter was treated as moot.
I am not persuaded that, if leave to appeal is granted, another court would reach a different outcome.
Supports: Summary claim that the court found no reasonable prospect of a different outcome on appeal.