Matamela v Mulaudzi

The matter originated in the Thohoyandou Magistrate’s Court, which granted an eviction order against the appellant, Tshioma Matamela, in favour of the respondent, David Masilo Mulaudzi. The appellant appealed to the Limpopo Division of the High Court, Thohoyandou, sitting as a full court. At the commencement of the appeal hearing, the high court removed the matter from the roll due to concerns arising from allegations made by the Judge President that certain judges in the division had been ‘captured’ by particular legal practitioners, including the appellant’s attorneys. The appellant subsequently sought leave to appeal against the removal-from-the-roll order. Although the high court was sitting as an appeal court, it granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The appellant then proceeded with the appeal to the SCA on the strength of that leave.

The appeal was struck from the roll with costs, limited to the costs of one counsel.

This case reaffirms the strict jurisdictional limits of the Supreme Court of Appeal and clarifies the operation of section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act. It confirms that special leave from the SCA is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite for appeals against decisions of a high court sitting as an appeal court, and that any leave purportedly granted by such a high court is invalid.