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
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAGPPHC 178
|
|
Petroport Mountain View (Pty) Ltd v South African National Road Agency Ltd and Others (5252/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 178 (18 June 2013)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 5252/2013
DATE:18/06/2013
In the matter between:
PETROPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW (PTY) LTD
(REG
NUMBER:
2002/011868/07)
.......................................................................
APPLICANT
and
SOUTH
AFRICAN NATIONAL ROAD AGENCY LTD
(REG
NUMBER:
1998/009584/06)
............................................................
1st
RESPONDENT
N3
TOLL CONCESSION (PTY) LTD
(REG
NUMBER:
1998/020534/07)
............................................................
2nd
RESPONDENT
TOTAL
SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
(REG
NUMBER:
1954/003325/07)
.............................................................
3rd RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KUBUSHI,
J
[1] The applicant in this matter seeks
leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and cost order I
delivered on the 19 April
2013 under case 5252/2013. having been read
into the record. He then proceeded to address me on the salient
points in respect of
those grounds.
[2]
The 1st respondent’s counsel opposed the application on the
ground that I have reasoned out my judgment very well and
there are
no prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.
[8]
The test for granting an application for leave to appeal is whether
there are reasonable prospects that another court may come
to a
different conclusion.
[9]
I had dealt in depth with all the issues raised by the applicant in
its application for leave to appeal in my judgment. However,
after
reading the application for leave to appeal and having listened to
the submissions advanced by counsel for and against the
application I
reconsidered the judgment afresh. Based on the ground raised by the
applicant, I am of the view that there are reasonable
prospects that
another court may come to a different conclusion. Leave to appeal
should therefore be granted.
[10]
I have been persuaded that another court may come to a different
conclusion in respect of amongst others:
a.
that the purpose of the interim interdict was not only to preserve
the status quo but also to correct an illegality committed
by a
public official. And that it was possible to correct the decision of
the 1st respondent if one looked at the photographs depicting
the
barrier.
b.
that there is a clear case of irreparable harm against the applicant
because its financials show that the applicant suffered
irreparable
harm and is on the verge of being shut down. It also does not have an
alternative remedy in that it is in dire straits.
c.
that the balance of convenience favours the applicant in that the
public interest in this matter is not of such a magnitude so
as to
outweigh the individual interest.
d.
that a departure from rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court was
required in the circumstances of this case.
[11]
The applicant raised grounds of appeal based on points of law
consequently the appeal should be to the Supreme Court of Appeal
on
all of the grounds mentioned in the applicant’s notice.
[12]
Costs in the application for leave to appeal are normally cost in the
application.
[13]
Accordingly I make the following order:
13.1
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted on all of
the grounds mentioned in the application for leave to appeal.
13.2
The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.
E.
M. KOBUSHI
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
HEARD
ON THE :12 JUNE 2013
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:18 JUNE 2013
APPLICANT’S
COUNSEL : ADV I. BREDENKEMP SC
APPLICANT’S
ATTORNEY : WEYER WALDICK & WILLEMSE
ATTORNEYS
1st
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL : ADV A.J. RALL SC
1st
RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEY : PKX INCORPORATED