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
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 953
|
|
Matemane v Nedbank Limited (20072/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 953 (1 November 2016)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
D
I
VISION,
PRETORIA
01/11/2016
CASE
NO: 20072/2014
MATEMANE,
NIKWANE
VINCENT
Applicant
And
NEDBANK
LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
AC
SASSON,
J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against the factual
findings made by this court. I do not intend restating all the
arguments as the same arguments were fully ventilated at the hearing
of the matter. Suffice to point out that I have reconsidered
all the
submissions in light of my judgment.
[2]
The test to be applied in applications for leave to appeal is
regulated by section 17(1) of the Supreme Courts Act 10 of 2013:
"17
Leave to appeal
(1)
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;
(b)
the decision sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit of
section 16
(2)
(a); 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."
[3]
The test for leave to appeal is
twofold:
Firstly, is there is reasonable prospect of
the
appeal
succeeding
[1]
and,
secondly, is
this a
case
of
substantial
importance not only to the parties, but also to the public at
large
[2]
[4]
I have considered the matter and I am not persuaded there is a
reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different
conclusion.
[5]
In the event I make the following order:
The
application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
_____________________
AC
BASSON
JUDGE
OF THE
HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For
the appellant
Adv BM Motshwane
Instructed
by
Dale Attorneys c/o Seabi Attorneys
For
the respondent
Adv J Minnaar
Instructed
by
DRSM Attorneys
[1]
Janit
v
Van den Heever
NNO
(No
2)
2001
(1) SA
1064
(W)
at 1062F.
[2]
Westinghouse
Brake and Equipment
(Pty)
Ltd
v
Bilger
Engineering
(Pty)
Ltd
1986 (2) SA 555
(A) at 5601.