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
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAGPPHC 290
|
|
JR209 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Homeless People Housing Cooperative Limited and Others (24505/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 290 (11 July 2019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED:
No
Case No. 24505/2019
In the matter between:
JR209 INVESTMENTS (PTY)
LTD
FIRST APPLICANT
IDLEWILD FARM (PTY) LTD
SECOND APPLICANT
IDLEWILD FARM CC (PTY) LTD
THIRD APPLICANT
LIBERINI
112 CC
FOURTH APPLICANT
HY-LINE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
FIFTH APPLICANT
MALUUVHA KWEKERY (PTY) LTD
SIXTH APPLICANT
And
HOMELESS
PEOPLE HOUSING COOPERATIVE
FIRST RESPONDENT
LIMITED
THE
EKHURULENI METROPOLITAN
SECOND RESPONDENT
MUNICIPALITY
THE
UNLAWFUL INVADERS OF PORTIONS 8,
THIRD RESPONDENT
10
AND 39 OF THE FARM WITKOPPIES 393
EKHURULENI
THE
GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF
FOURTH RESPONDENT
AGRICULTURAL
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
THE
MINISTER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN
FIFTH RESPONDENT
POLICE
SERVICES
COLONEL
RAKGALAKANE, STATION
SIXTH RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER
OF SAPS OLIFANTSFONTEIN
SAMUEL
MANDLHA SONGO
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MILLAR.
A J
1.
This is an application for leave to appeal by the first and seventh
respondents against an order handed down on 26 April 2019.
2. The
test for the granting of leave to appeal is set out in S 17(1)
of the
Superior Courts Act
[1]
as follows:
"Leave to appeal may only
be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that-
(a)
(i) the appeal
would have
a
reasonable
prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some
other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard; including
conflicting judgments on the matter
under consideration;
3. This
application sets out number of different grounds upon which it is
alleged
the court erred. Broadly these are firstly that the court
postponed the application to hold the seventh respondent in contempt,
secondly that the first respondent was held to be in contempt of an
order granted on 19 April 2019, thirdly that credibility findings
were made against the seventh respondent and lastly that paragraph
5.2 of the order in question may be interpreted to authorize
the
demolition of occupied structures.
4. I
have considered the grounds upon which this application for leave to
appeal
has been brought, the reasons for granting the order of 26
April 2019 and the arguments advanced by the parties and am of the
view
that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would
come to a different conclusion or that there is any compelling reason
why leave to appeal should be granted in this matter.
5. In
the circumstances, I make the following order:
The application for leave to
appeal is dismissed with costs.
A MILLAR
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD
ON:
11
JULY 2019
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED ON:
11
JULY 2019
COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANTS:
ADV. WR DU PREEZ
(1
ST
& 7
TH
RESPONDENTS IN THE MAIN ACTION)
INSTRUCTED
BY:
LE ROUX & DU PLESSIS INC.
REFERENCE:
MR G DU PLESSIS
COUNSEL
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
ADV. P LOURENS
(1
ST
- 6
TH
APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION)
INSTRUCTED
BY
: ROESTOFF ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE
: MR JJ ROESTOFF
[1]
Act 10 of 2013