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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 358
|
|
Coetzee and Others v RMB Private Bank Limited (2015/24931) [2021] ZAGPPHC 358 (14 May 2021)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
D
I
VISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO:20
1
5/24931
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In
the matter between:
ABF
COETZEE N.O
1
st
Applicant
AJ
COETZEE N.O
2
nd
Applicant
GR
COETZEE N.O
3
rd
Applicant
(In
their capacities as trustees of the AFG Familie Trust)
ERF
75 PECANWOOD ESTATE (PTY) LTD
4
th
Applicant
AJ
COETZEE
5
th
Applicant
SOFTUSA
(PTY)
LTD
6
th
Applicant
BROOKLYN
CHAMBERS (PTY) LTD
7
th
Applicant
GR
COETZEE
8
th
Applicant
LENCO
ENTERPRISES (PTY) LTD
9
th
Applicant
And
RMB
PRIVATE BANK LIMITED
Respondent
(A
division of First
Rand Bank Ltd)
LEAVE
TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
MOKOSE
J
[1]
The applicants have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
of Appeal, alternatively, a full Court of this division
against the
order I delivered on 18 March 2020 under case number 24931/2015.
[2]
The applicants seek leave to appeal on several grounds as stated in
their application for leave to appeal. Counsel for the applicants
addressed the court on the salient points raised in the application,
some of which points were being raised for the first time
in the
leave to appeal. These points were opposed by counsel for the
respondent on the grounds that I have reasoned out well in
my
judgment as also on the ground that some of these points were being
raised for the first time in the leave to appeal. Furthermore,
submissions were made that there are no prospects that another court
would have come to a different conclusion.
[3]
The test for granting an application for leave to appeal is whether
there are reasonable prospects that another court would
have come to
a different conclusion. Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of
2013 ("the Act") states that leave to
appeal may only be
granted where the judge or judges are of the opinion that:
(a)
(i) the appeal
would have a reasonable
prospect of success; or
(ii)
for some other compelling reason it should be heard, including
conflicting
judgements on the matter under consideration;
(b)
the decision sought
does not fall within the ambit of Section
16(2)(a) of the Act; and
(c)
where the decision
sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the
issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt
resolution of
the real issues between the parties.
[4]
The test
l
aid
down in
Section
1
7
of the Act is now a subjective
one and no
l
onger
an objective test. There
must
be
a
measure
of
certainty
that
another
court
will
differ
from
the
court
whose
judgment is sought to be appealed against.
[1]
[5]
I had dealt in depth with all the issues raised in the application
for leave to appeal in my judgement. After considering the
submissions by both counsel for the applicants and counsel for the
respondent and after reading the application for leave to appeal,
I
am of the view that there are prospects that another court would come
to a different conclusion.
[6]
Accordingly, the following order is granted:
(i)
leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this Court; and
(ii)
the costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the
appeal.
MOKOSE
J
14
May 2021
[1]
The Mont Cheveaux Trust (
I
T2012/28)
v Tina Goosen &
1
8
Others (unreported judgment deliver on
3 November
2014)