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 674
|
|
Empire Crossing Development (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Energy and Others (Leave to Appeal) (71333/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 674 (13 September 2022)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case
Number
: 71333/2018
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
13
September 2022
In
the matter between:
EMPIRE
CROSSING DEVELOPMENT (PTY) LTD
First Applicant
TEXICAM
INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Second
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF
ENERGY First
Respondent
THE
CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Second
Respondent
TOM
CAMPHER
MOTORS Third
Respondent
ENGEN
EMPIRE
CROSSING Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT:
LEAVE TO APPEAL
KUBUSHI
J
[1]
The Applicants seek leave to appeal the whole judgment and order of
this Court dated
21 July 2022 and handed down electronically on the
same date, refusing the relief they sought in the main application.
[2]
The matter is to be determined on the papers without oral hearing.
No new heads
of argument were filed by the parties. In support of the
application for leave to appeal, the First and Second Applicants
(“the
Applicants”) relied on their heads of argument
previously filed, dated 4 March 2022, their supplementary heads of
argument
dated 6 May 2022, as well as the grounds of appeal stated in
the application for leave to appeal. They furthermore, augmented
their
heads of argument in a letter dated 12 August 2022 addressed to
the Court.
[3]
The First and Second Respondents in opposing the application for
leave to appeal,
relied on the heads of argument filed during the
hearing of the main application. As in the hearing of the main
application, the
Third and Fourth Respondents are not taking
part in the current proceedings.
[4]
Applications for leave to appeal are ordinarily brought in terms of
section 17
(1)
(a)
(i) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
.
The sub-section provides that leave to appeal may only be given where
the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that the
appeal
would have a reasonable prospect of success.
[5]
The Applicants’ grounds for leave to appeal are succinctly
stated in the notice
of application for leave to appeal, and need not
be repeated in this judgment. The said grounds of appeal have
been fully
covered and considered in the judgment the Applicants seek
to appeal.
[6]
Having considered the grounds of appeal raised by the Applicants and
the arguments
for and against such application raised by the parties
in their respective heads of argument, this Court is of the opinion
that
there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
[7]
Consequently, the following order is made:
1.
Leave to appeal the whole judgment and order of this Court dated 21
July 2022 to the Full
Court of this Division, is granted to the First
and Second Applicants.
2.
Costs of this application are costs in the appeal.
E.M
KUBUSHI
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Delivered:
This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by e-mail. The date and
time for
hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 13 September 2022.
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANTS’
ATTORNEYS:
GERHARD
WAGENAAR
ATTORNEY
APPLICANTS’
COUNSEL:
ADV
S D WAGENER SC
FIRST
& SECOND RESPONDENTS’ ATTORNEYS:
STATE ATTORNEY
FIRST
& SECOND RESPONDENT COUNSEL: ADV
MMW VAN ZYL SC
THIRD
RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEYS: A
KOCK & ASSOCIATES INC
THIRD
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL ADV
E VAN AS SC