RZT Zelpy 4094 (Proprietary) Limited v Lester (61061/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 931 (18 August 2015)

30 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal dismissed — Court's assessment of reasonable prospects of success — Judge not required to justify or reinterpret previous judgment — No reasonable prospects of another court reaching a different conclusion. The applicant sought leave to appeal against a judgment delivered on 24 April 2015, filing the application on 19 May 2015. The judge considered the grounds of appeal and determined that there were no reasonable prospects of success for another court to arrive at a different conclusion. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

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 931
|

|

RZT Zelpy 4094 (Proprietary) Limited v Lester (61061/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 931 (18 August 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Case Number: 61061/2014
DATE: 18 AUGUST 2015
In the matter between:
RZT ZELPY 4094 (PROPRIETARY)
LIMITED
..................................................................
Applicant
And
NORMAN MARCUS
LESTER
............................................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO
APPEAL
MAKHUBELE AJ
[1] Judgment in this matter was
delivered on 24 April 2015 and the application for leave to appeal
was filed on 19 May 2015.
[2] (Have carefully considered the
grounds of appeal, the arguments advanced and the reasons for my
judgment.
[3] What is expected of me at this
stage is to consider, objectively, whether there are reasonable
prospects of another court coming
to a different conclusion than that
I arrived at in my judgment. I am not required to justify my judgment
or offer interpretation
thereof. This is also not an opportunity for
me to re-write or supplement my judgment.
[4] Having considered all the above, I
am not convinced that there are reasonable prospects of another court
(faced with the same
facts and questions of law before me) coming to
a different conclusion than that I arrived at in my judgment.
[5] Accordingly, I make the following
order:
[5.1] The application for leave to
appeal is dismissed with costs.
TAN MAKHUBELE
Acting Judge of the High Court
APPEARANCES:
Applicant: Advocate J Van Rooyen
Instructed by: Donn E Bruwer
Attorney
PRETORIA
Respondent: Advocate GT Avvakoumides
Instructed by: Mark Efstratiou
Incorporated
PRETORIA