About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZAGPPHC 183
|
|
Chetty v Italtile Ceramics Ltd (34660/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 183 (23 September 2011)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 34660/2009
DATE:23/09/2011
In
the matter between:
DHAYALAN
CHOCKANATHAN
CHETTY
.....................................................................
Applicant
and
ITALTILE
CERAMICS
LTD
......................................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKGOKA,
J:
[1]
The unsuccessful defendant in the trial seeks leave to appeal against
the whole of the judgment of this court delivered on 13
July 2011.
The application is opposed by the successful plaintiff. The grounds
for the application are fully set out in the notice
of application
for leave to appeal dated 1 August 2011, and it is therefore not
necessary to regurgitate them here.
[2]
The test applicable to an application such as the present, is trite
and well settled, namely whether there are reasonable prospects
that
another court may come to a different conclusion. After a careful and
dispassionate regard to the judgment, the grounds of
appeal, as well
as the oral submissions made by counsel for the parties, I am
persuaded that there are indeed reasonable prospects
that another
court might arrive to a different conclusion to mine. I am therefore
inclined to grant leave to appeal.
[3]
Counsel were ad idem that in the event I grant leave, it should be to
the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA). I agree. The cause
of action
and the question of law involved here are largely unexplored, as to
merit the attention of the SCA.
[4]
In the result I make the following order:
1.
The applicant (DC Chetty) is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Appeal against the whole judgment and orders of
this court
delivered on 13 July 2011.
2.
Costs of this application are costs in the appeal.
T
MN MAKGOKA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT