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
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 831
|
|
SOHO Nails Waxing Beauty (PTY) Limited v CGS Shopfitters CC (25241/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 831 (25 October 2022)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO:
25241/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
25/10/2022
In the matter between:
SOHO
NAILS WAXING BEAUTY (PTY) LIMITED
Appellant
and
CGS
SHOPFITTERS
CC
Respondent
Coram:
Dlamini J
Date
of hearing: 7 October
2022 – in a ‘virtual Hearing’ during
a
videoconference on Microsoft Teams digital platform.
Date
of judgment: 25 October 2022
This
judgment is deemed to have been delivered electronically by
circulation to the parties’ representatives via email and
shall
be uploaded onto the caselines system.
JUDGMENT
LEAVE
TO APPEAL
DLAMINI
J
[1]
This an application for leave to appeal my judgment that I handed
down on 8 September
2022.
[2]
The matter has a long history going back to a default judgment that
was granted against
the applicant on 14 November 2018.
[3]
It is common cause that when the matter came before me, the parties
agreed that only
the point
in limine,
wether this rescission
application is incomptant, should be argued as this will have the
effect of disposing the matter without
dealing with the merits
thereof.
[4]
The numb of the issue is whether Judge Senyatsi had already made a
ruling that a further
rescission application was incompetent.
[5]
It is trite that for an application for leave to appeal to be
successful it is required
of the parties seeking such leave to
demonstrate that there are reasonable prospects that another Court
would come to a different
conclusion to that reached in the judgment
that is sought to be taken on appeal.
[6]
The provisions of section 17 of the Supreme Court Act has now
elevated the test to
be applied for granting of leave to appeal. The
use of the word “would” when considering the prospects of
success in
section 17 (1)(a)(i) , now imposes a more stringent and
vigorous threshold.
[7]
I have read the heads of argument and heard and submissions of
Counsel for both parties
.
[8]
The honourable Senyatsi J found that another rescission application
is incompetent.
Futher that application to rescind the judgment is
impermissible.
[9]
It is my considered view there is no ambiguity in Judge Senyatsi’s
judgment
. Unless it is reviewed, appealed and set aside, the
judgment remains valid and should be followed.
For all the reasons
stated above and in my judgment, I make the following order:
ORDER
The application for leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs
DLAMINI
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Date of
hearing:
7 October 2022
Delivered:
25 October 2022
For
the Applicants:
Adv
AJ Venter
Email:
ajventer@law.co.za
Instructed
by:
Martins
Weir-Smith
For
theRespondent
:
SG Dos Santos
Email:
suzydsantos@gmail.com
Instructed
by:
James Bush