Lendtech Investment Holdings Private Limited v IMS Tech Corp Limited and Others (2023-025384) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1042 (18 September 2023)

30 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Application for leave to appeal — Lendtech Investment Holdings seeks leave to appeal against the order of 6 June 2023 — Court finds no reasonable prospect of success on appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 — No compelling reason to grant leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(ii) — Application dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel where employed.

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 1042
|

|

Lendtech Investment Holdings Private Limited v IMS Tech Corp Limited and Others (2023-025384) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1042 (18 September 2023)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO:
2023-025384
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
18.09.23
In the matter between:
LENDTECH
INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMTED
APPLICANT
And
IMS
TECH CORP LIMITED
1
st
RESPONDENT
IMS
VENTURES (PTY) LTD
2
nd
RESPONDENT
IMS
VENTURES DIGITAL (PTY) LTD
3
rd
RESPONDENT
MOBI
SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
4
th
RESPONDENT
TELKOM
SA SOC LIMITED
5
th
RESPONDENT
MTN
GROUP LIMITED
6
th
RESPONDENT
MOBILE
TELEPHONE NETWORKS (PTY) LTD
7
th
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
– APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
WRIGHT J
1.
On 6 June 2023 I handed down a typed, signed
judgment in the main application. This judgment is to be read with
that judgment.
2.
Lendtech now seeks leave to appeal my order of 6
June 2023.
3.
In my view and with the provisions of
section
17(1)(a)(i)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
in mind the
applicant, Lendtech has no reasonable prospect on appeal and under
section 17(1)(a)(ii)
there is no other compelling reason why leave to
appeal should be granted.
4.
The respondents sought dismissal of this
application with costs on a punitive scale. The arguments are that
this application, like
that before me originally, is hopeless and
there has been a change of tack in argument on appeal.
5.
I would not go so far as to find that the present
application is dishonest just because there is a change in argument.
Taking perhaps
a somewhat lenient view of the applicant’s case
now, ordinary costs suffice in the present application.
ORDER
1.
The application is
dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel where so
employed.
GC Wright
Judge of the High
Court
Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
HEARD
:  18 September 2023
DELIVERED
:  18 September 2023
APPEARANCES
:
APPLICANT
Adv Anthonie Jansen Van
Vuuren SC
vanv@law.co.za
Instructed by KapdiTwala
Inc t/a Vanessa Jacklin-Levin and Kirith Haria
Vanessa.jacklinlevin@dentons.com
/
Kirith.haria@dentons.com
/
Johannesburg.litigations.com
1
st
to 4
th
RESPONDENTS
Adv Alfred Cockrell SC
Adv
Luke Kelly
Jeremy@gauntlett.co.za
Luke.kelly@capebar.co.za
Instructed by CMS
Attorney
siphokazi.kayana@cms-rm.com
nomfundo.m-jackson@cms-rm.com
5
th
RESPONDENT
Adv Nazeer Cassim SC
Adv Yakoob Alli
Ncassim@law.co.za
Alli@counsel.co.za
Instructed by Webber
Wentzel Attorneys
Priyesh.daya@webberwentzel.com
martin.hattingh@webberwentzel.com
6
th
and 7
th
RESPONDENTS
Adv Dennis Fine SC
Adv Makhotso Lengane
Dennis@counsel.co.za
Lengane@group621.co.za
Instructed by Werksmans
Attorneys
Cmanaka@werksmans.com
abilatyi@werksmans.com
krapoo@werksmans.com