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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 30
|
|
Ridge Mall (Pty) Ltd v Twin City Bosbokrand (Pty) Ltd (50490/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 30 (30 January 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 50490/2012
Date heard: 30
January 2015
Date of judgment: 30
January 2015
Not reportable
Not of interest to
other judges
In the matter
between:
RIDGE MALL (PTY)
LTD
........................................................................
Applicant/Respondent
And
TWIN CITY
BOSBOKRAND (PTY)
LTD
...............................................
Respondent/Applicant
IN RE: THE MAIN
APPLICATION BETWEEN
TWIN CITY
BOSBOKRAND (PTY)
LTD
.................................................................
Applicant
and
THE MUNICIPAL
MANAGER
BUSHBUCKRIDGE
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
...........................................
First
Respondent
THE MEC FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND LAND ADMINISTRATION -
MPUMALANGA
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
.................................
Second
Respondent
THE DIRECTOR:
LAND ADMINISTRATION AND LAND
USE - DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND
LAND ADMINISTRATION -
MPUMALANGA
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
...................................
Third
Respondent
THE MEC:
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENT AND
TOURISM - MPUMALANGA
PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT
................................................................
Fourth
Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF
DEEDS
.....................................................................
Fifth
Respondent
ROUX PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT AFRICA CC
...............................
Sixth
Respondent
RIDGE MALL (PTY)
LTD
.......................................................................
Seventh
Respondent
THE SURVEYOR
GENERAL
......................................................................
Eight
Respondent
JUDGMENT
A.M.L. PHATUDI J:
[1] Having read the
application for leave to appeal and having heard the submissions made
with specific reference to the point in
limine raised by the
respondents in this matter. It is correct that the orders I granted
in terms of Rule 35(12) and the dismissal
of the appellants
application are preparatory and purely interlocutory in nature.
[2] It is trite that
the interlocutory orders are not decisions that are final in effect
and do not dispose of the substantial claim
thus not appealable.
[3]
In the result I am of the view that the point
in
limine
should
be upheld.
I therefore make the
following order:
Order:
The application
for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
A.M.L.Phatudi
Judge of the High
Court
On behalf of Ridge
Mall (Pty) Ltd: Van Der Wal Slade Ramabulana
Suite 5, Monpark
Building
Monument Park
Pretoria
Adv. J.A. Venter
On behalf of the
Twin City
Bosbokrand (Pty)
Ltd: Adriaan venter Attorneys
Lady Brooks Building
14 - 12 Str
C/O Brooklyn
& Charles Str
Menlo Park
Pretoria
Adv. P.G. Cilliers
SC