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
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAGPPHC 71
|
|
Pheiffer and Others v About it Pretoria (Pty) Ltd and Others (65188/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 71 (21 February 2017)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case
number: 65188/2014
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
Date
of hearing: 21 February 2017
In
the matter between:
RUDI
PHEIFFER
First
Applicant
RUDI
PHEIFFER N.O
(in
his capacity as trustee of the Pheiffer Family Trust) Second
Applicant
CORNELIA
MARIA PHEIFFER N.O
(in
her capacity as trustee of the Pheiffer Family Trust)
Third Applicant
and
ABOUT
IT PRETORIA (PTY) LTD
First
Respondent
GERHARDUS
MARTHINUS OLIVIER Second
Respondent
GERHARDUS
MARTHINUS OLIVIER N.O
(in
his capacity as trustee of the Reivilo Trust)
Third
Respondent
MADELEIN
OLIVIER N.O
(in
her capacity as trustee of the Reivilo Trust)
Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
IN APPLICANTS' APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
BRENNER
AJ
1.
This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of my
judgment delivered on 10 November 2016, and is brought by
the above
applicants. The applicants served a notice of application for leave
to appeal on 28 November 2016 ("the notice").
2.
Having duly considered the various grounds adumbrated in the
applicants' notice, I disagree.
3.
It is not necessary for me to traverse the various grounds ad
seriatim. This is because the crisp issue hinges on the validity
of
the agreement dated 22 April 2011. This agreement is void for failure
to comply with section 6(1) of the Trust Property Control
Act. Any
factual matrix against which it was concluded is toto caelo
irrelevant and cannot redeem an act which is void at law.
4.
At the time the agreement was concluded, the Pheiffer Family Trust
had not been registered and Rudi Pheiffer was not duly authorised
to
act under letters of authority issued by the Master of the High
Court. These facts simpliciter are dispositive of the matter.
5.
Suffice it to say that there is no need to repeat the grounds for
arriving at my decision in this judgment.
6.
In the premises, I am of the view that the applicants do not enjoy a
reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and that there
is no other
compelling reason why an appeal against my judgment should be heard.
In my respectful view, leave to appeal should
accordingly be refused,
with costs following the result.
7.
The following order is granted:
a.
the applicants' application for leave to appeal against my judgment
delivered on 10 November 2016 is dismissed;
b.
the applicants are directed to pay the costs of this application
jointly and severally.
________________________
T
BRENNER
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
21
February 2017
Appearances
Counsel
for the Applicants: Adv JD Maritz SC
Instructed
by: Gerhard Botha and Partners Inc
Counsel
for the Respondents: Advocate APJ Els
Instructed
by: Van der Merwe and Associates Inc