---

 

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

 

---