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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 214
|
|
SAR Investments (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (16344-2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 214 (4 March 2024)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE TAX COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
Number: 16344/2021
1.REPORTABLE:
NO
2.OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO
3.REVISED:
NO
4
March 2024
In
the matter between:
SAR
INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD
(Registration
Number: 2018/289859/07)
Applicant
and
THE
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
(Registration
Number: 1962/000738/06)
First Respondent
THE
SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK
Second Respondent
THE
MINISTER OF FINANCE N.O
Third Respondent
This Judgment was
handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading
to the electronic file on
Case Lines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 04 March 2024.
JUDGMENT
MOLAHLEHI J
[1]
This is an
application for leave to appeal against the whole of my judgment and
order, delivered on
27 July 2023
after I had dismissed the application with costs.
The
essential reason for the dismissal of the application was that no
cause of action was disclosed in the applicant’s
application.
[2]
In its notice of motion in the main application, the applicant sought
an order to have the first and second respondents
pay to it R944
085.00, jointly and severally the one paying the other to be
absolved. The applicant further prayed that in case
the said amount
was attached by the respondents in terms of section 9 (2) (b) (i) of
the Currency
Exchange Control Regulations of 1961
, the attachment
should be set aside.
[3]
The details of the controversy between the parties are set out in the
earlier judgment of this court and thus I do not
deem it
necessary
to repeated the same herein. Similarly, there is no need to repeat
the various grounds of appeal raised by the applicant in its
notice
of leave to appeal.
[4]
The
test for determining an application for leave to appeal is set out in
section 17
(1) (a) of the Superior Courts Act
[1]
.
The essential requirement of the test is that the applicant has to
show that he or she has a reasonable prospect of success on
appeal
and
that there is a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.
The
threshold of this test is satisfied when it is demonstrated that
there is a sound rational basis to conclude that there is a
reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
[2]
[5]
In considering this application, I had regard to the grounds of
appeal set out in the notice of application, the submission
made by
the parties both in their heads of argument and the oral submissions
by their legal representatives. I have also had regard
to the
statutory and regulatory framework relied on by the applicant,
including the judgment of this court.
[6]
I am not persuaded that the applicant has made a case that satisfies
the abovementioned requirements of section 17(1)
(a) of the Act.
Accordingly, the applicant's case stands to fail.
Order
1.
In the circumstances, the applicant's application for leave to appeal
is dismissed with costs.
E
MOLAHLEHI J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
JOHANNESBURG
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for
Applicant:
CLAUDIO LUIGI PIETRO BOLLO
Attorneys for the
applicant:
BICCARI BOLLO MARIANOR
Counsels for the 1
st
Respondent:
KD ILES
Attorneys for 1
st
respondent:
VAN HULSTEYNS ATTORNEYS
Counsel for 2
nd
Respondent:
MKHULULI STUBBS
Attorneys for 2dn
Respondent:
MACROBAT ATTORNEYS
Hearing
Date:
28 FEBRUARY 2024
Delivered:
4 March 2024
[1]
Act 10 of 2013
[2]
See Four Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC v Rattan NO
2019 (3)
SA 451
(SCA) at para 34.