About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAFSHC 508
|
|
Razzmatazz Civil (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC: Free State Provincial Government: Department of Police, Roads and Transport (2547/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 508 (29 December 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable:
YES/NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
Case
Number: 2547/2019
In
the matter between:
RAZZMATAZZ
CIVIL (PTY) LTD
1
st
Respondent / Plaintiff
CIVIL
TECH CONSTRUCTION CC
2
nd
Respondent / Plaintiff
And
THE
MEC: FREE STATE PROVINCIAL
Applicant/Defendant
GOVERNMENT:
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE,
ROADS
AND TRANSPORT
HEARD
ON:
By agreement,
t
his
matter was disposed of without the hearing of oral arguments as
provided for in
s 19(a)
of
the
Superior
Courts Act 10 of 2013
.
JUDGMENT
BY:
DANISO, J
DELIVERED
ON:
29 DECEMBER
2023
[1]
This is an opposed application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Appeal
or the full bench of this division against the
judgment and the consequent order that I delivered on 6 October
2023. In terms
of the said order, I upheld the respondents’
claim for idle construction equipment and interest for the late
payment of the
respondent’s payment certificate rendered on 26
October 2016, The applicant was ordered to pay the costs.
[2]
The background facts of this matter are illustrated in my main
judgment. I therefore deem it unnecessary
to repeat them in this
judgment.
[3]
The applicant’s grounds of appeal are embodied in a lengthy
ten-paged, 24 paragraphed notice
of appeal which are essentially
premised on the grounds that this court erred in its interpretation
of the contracts governing
the contractual relationship between the
parties namely, the General Conditions of Contract for Construction
Works (GCC) and also
in its finding that based on the evidence
proffered on behalf of the respondent, the applicant’s
liability was proven on
a balance of probabilities.
[4]
The application is premised on the provisions of
s17(1)
(a)
(i) of the
Superior Courts Act
[1
]
which are trite: leave to appeal can only be granted if I am
persuaded that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success.
It was pointed out in
Ramakatsa
and Others v African National Congress and Another
[2]
that:
“…
The
test of reasonable prospects of success postulates a dispassionate
decision based on the facts and the law that a court of appeal
could
reasonably arrive at a conclusion different to that of the trial
court. In other words, the appellants in this matter need
to convince
this Court on proper grounds that they have prospects of success on
appeal. Those prospects of success must not be
remote, but there must
exist a reasonable chance of succeeding. A sound rational basis for
the conclusion that there are prospects
of success must be shown to
exis
t.”
[5]
I have
had a careful and dispassionate regard to my judgment.
I refrain from repeating my reasoning here. In essence, I am of the
view
that I have adequately dealt with all the aspects raised by the
applicant in the grounds of appeal and having regard to what is
deliberated in my judgment I am not persuaded that the issues raised
by the applicant in this application have substance and that
the
appeal has any reasonable prospect of success. The
application
for leave to appeal stands to be dismissed.
[6]
In the result the following order is made:
1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
NS
DANISO, J
For
the applicant:
N
A Cassim
Instructed
by:
The
State Attorney
BLOEMFONTEIN
For
the respondents:
Adv.
S Grobler (SC)
Instructed
by:
Graham
Attorneys
Bloemfontein
[1]
Act 10 of 2013
.
[2]
[2021]
ZASCA 31
(31
March 2021) para 10.