About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2020
>>
[2020] ZAGPJHC 354
|
|
De Villiers v Jones and Another (48438/2011) [2020] ZAGPJHC 354 (25 June 2020)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
COMMERCIAL
COURT
(1)
NOT REPORTABLE
(2)
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
25
June 2020
CASE
NO: 48438/2011
In
the matter between:
SHENAAZ
VE DE VILLIERS
Applicant/
Plaintiff
and
ZAAIBOONISHA
JONES
First
Respondent/ First Defendant
REGISTRAR
OF DEEDS
Second
Respondent/ Second Defendant
JUDGMENT
IN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MODIBA
J:
[1]
The applicant, who was the
plaintiff in the action (De Villiers), has applied for leave to
appeal the judgment and order that I
handed down on 18 May 2020. The
First Respondent, who was the First Defendant in the action (Jones),
is the only respondent opposing
the application.
[2]
De Villiers
relies on
section 17(1)(a)(i)
of the
Superior Courts Act
10 of 2013
. It provides:
“
(1)
Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned
are of the opinion that-
(a)
(i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of
success;”
[3]
It has
become trite that this provision only allows leave to appeal to be
granted where the applicant establishes that another court
would
arrive at different findings and order from that rendered in the
judgment appealed against.
[1]
[4]
De Villiers has set out her grounds of appeal in
detail. Jones contends that there are no prospects that another court
would come
to a different conclusion on these issues.
[5]
I have considered the grounds for appeal as set
out in
De Villiers’
notice of appeal as well as submissions by counsel for the parties. I
stand by my reasons for judgment as set out in the judgment
handed
down in this matter.
[6]
I find that
De
Villiers
fails to meet the threshold
referred to above.
[7]
In the premises, the
following order is made:
ORDER
1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, which
costs shall include the costs of two counsel where
so employed.
MS
L T MODIBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
for the Plaintiff:
Advocate
P Springveldt
Instructed
by:
G.W. Mashele
Attorneys
Counsel
for the First Defendant:
Advocate EL
Theron SC
Advocate
T Steyn
Instructed
by:
Klopper
Jonker Inc.
Date
of Judgment:
25 June 2020
[1]
The
Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen &
18
Others
2014 JDR 2325
(LCC)
at
para
[6].