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
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPPHC 541
|
|
Zimele Investment Enterprise Company (Pty) Ltd v South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others (36023/2021 and 36024/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 541 (20 July 2022)
HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 36023/2021 & 36024/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO.
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
20
July 2022
In
the matter between:
ZIMELE
INVESTMENT ENTERPRISE
COMPANY
(PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
SOUTH
AFICAN NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY LTD
First
Respondent
TELEGENIX
TRADING 799 (PTY) LTD
Second
Respondent
SERVEST
FACILITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Third Respondent
DNA
CONSULTING ENGINEERS &
PROJECT
MANAGERS
Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
(In
the applications for Leave to Appeal and to Cross-Appeal )
This matter
has been heard by way of a virtual hearing and disposed of in the
terms of the Directives of the Judge President of
this Division. The
judgment and order are accordingly published and distributed
electronically.
DAVIS, J
[1]
In this matter the
originally cited third respondent (Telegenix) sought leave to appeal
and the original applicant (Zimele) subsequently
applied for leave to
cross-appeal the judgment of this court dated 14 April 2022.
The parties have convinced me that such
leave should be granted and,
after debate, I am of the view that leave to appeal and to
cross-appeal should be granted to a full
court of this division in
terms of
Section 17(6)(a)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
.
[2]
SANRAL, who has otherwise abided the
decision of this court, however opposed Zimele’s application to
cross-appeal the costs
order granted in respect of the subsequent
abandoned Part A of the main application. This was wherein
Zimele initially sought
an interdict in a somewhat belated urgent
application. SANRAL was joined in argument by Telegenix to the
effect that the
costs order was correctly granted, was as a result of
the exercise of this court’s discretion and that such exercise
was
not properly or sufficiently attacked by Zimele in its notice of
application for leave to cross-appeal. I have listened to
argument on this topic and agree with Telegenix and SANRAL that the
threshold for leave to appeal an exercise of a discretion had
not
been met and that there are no other compelling reasons why such
leave should be granted.
[3]
Order in both 36023/2021 and 36024/2021:
1.
The applications for leave to appeal and to
cross-appeal the judgment and orders of this court of 14 April 2022,
save for paragraph
6.1 of those orders, are granted.
2.
Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal shall
be to the full court of this division.
3.
Costs of the applications for leave to
appeal and to cross-appeal shall be costs in the appeals.
N DAVIS
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of Hearing:
19 July
2022
Judgment delivered:
20 July 2022
APPEARANCES:
Case no: 36023/2021
For
the Applicant:
Adv
T D Prinsloo
Attorney
for the Applicant:
Lowndes
Dlamini Inc, Santon
c/o Riaan Bosch Attorney,
Pretoria
For
the 1
st
Respondent:
Adv
S Scott
Attorneys
for the 1
st
Respondent: Goitseona
Pilane Attorneys,
Pretoria
For
the 2
nd
Respondent:
Adv
M Collins SC
Attorneys
for the 2
nd
Respondent: Dukhi
Attorneys, Durban
c/o Wiese & Wiese
Inc., Pretoria
Case
no: 36024/2021
For
the Applicant: Adv
T D Prinsloo
Attorney
for the Applicant: Lowndes
Dlamini Inc, Santon
c/o Riaan Bosch Attorney,
Pretoria
For
the 1
st
Respondent: Adv
S Scott
Attorneys
for the 1
st
Respondent: Dube
N Attorneys, Johannesburg
c/o Shabangu Attorney,
Pretoria
For
the 2
nd
Respondent:
Adv
M Collins SC
Attorneys
for the 2
nd
Respondent:
Dukhi Attorneys, Durban
c/o Wiese & Wiese
Inc., Pretoria