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
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 826
|
|
Davidson v Cough NO and Others (41962/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 826 (25 July 2023)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO:
41962/2021
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In the matter between:
SEAN
RIST DAVIDSON
Applicant
and
BRENDA
MEGAN COUGH N.O.
(Cited
in her capacity as the Executrix in
The
estate late David Cough)
FIRST
RESPONDENT
BRENDA
MEGAN COUGH
(Identity
No:[…])
SECOND
RESPONDENT
STAND
1231 LEISURE BAY CLOSE CORPORATION
(Registration
No:[…])
THIRD
RESPONDENT
STAND
1232 LEISURE BAY CLOSE CORPORATION
(Registration
No […])
FOURTH
RESPONDENT
THE
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION
FIFTH
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Delivered:
This
judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to
Parties
/ their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on Case Lines. The date
of the
judgment is deemed to be the 25
th
of July 2023.
TWALA J
[1] For the sake of
convenience, in this judgment I shall refer to the parties as they
are referred to in the main application and
in the judgment.
[2] The first and second
respondents brought this application for leave to appeal against the
whole of the judgment and order of
this Court handed down
electronically on the 20
th
of December 2022. It is worth
noting that the third and fourth respondents are not participating in
this application for leave
to appeal as they did not participate in
the main application.
[3] It is a trite
principle of our law that leave to appeal may only be given where the
Judge or Judges concerned are of the
opinion that the appeal would
have a reasonable prospect of success or where there is some other
compelling reason why the appeal
should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.
(See
section 17
(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the
Superior Courts Act, 10 of
2013
).
[4] The grounds for
the leave to appeal are succinctly stated in the notice of
application for leave to appeal and I do not
intend to repeat them in
this judgment. Furthermore, I am grateful to both counsel for the
parties for the submissions made at
the hearing of this application
for leave to appeal.
[5] I am satisfied
that I have covered and considered all the issues raised in the
application for leave to appeal in my judgment.
I am therefore not
persuaded by the respondents that there are reasonable prospects of
success in this appeal. Put differently,
I am of the view that there
is no prospect that another Court would come to a different
conclusion in this case. Therefore, the
application for leave to
appeal the judgment falls to be dismissed with costs.
[6] In the
circumstances, the following order is made:
The application for leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs.
TWALA M L
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION
Date of Hearing:
20
th
of July 2023
Date of Judgment:
25
th
of July 2023
For the Applicant:
Advocate S Meyer
Instructed by: Harris
Billings Attorneys
Tel: 011 784 1910
megan@hbattorneys.co.za
For the Respondents:
Advocate R Willis
Instructed by:
Denzil Michael Fryer
Attorneys
Tel: 011 675 5320
denzil@dmfa.co.za