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
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 269
|
|
Deniwa Food Consortium and Another v Minister of Defence (16678/06) [2009] ZAGPPHC 269 (7 August 2009)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 16678/06
DATE:
2009-06-18
DATE:07/08/2009
In
the matter between
DENIWA
FOOD CONSORTIUM
…....................................................
1st
Applicant
D
C LOUW
….......................................................................................
2nd
Applicant
And
MINISTER
OF DEFENCE
….................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
(LEAVE TO APPEAL)
PRINSLOO.
J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment I
gave in November last year in the opposed motion
court. Mr Vermeulen
appears for the applicants for leave to appeal and Ms Haupt for the
respondent.
At
the outset, or at some stage during the proceedings I enquired as
the reason for the delay in bringing the application to my
attention
only a few weeks ago on 2, May when the application for leave to
appeal was already lodged in December 2008. Through
no fault of
counsel, I could not get a definitive answer from either of them, but
it appears that in the end the respondent took
the initiative to
expedite this application for leave to appeal and Mr Vermeulen
suggested that there may have been an oversight
in the office of the
register.
Either
way, it is as well to record that the application only came to my
attention a few weeks ago when the request received attention.
As
to the merits of the application for leave to appeal, I dealt with
all the issues at some length in the judgment for leave to
appeal, I
dealt with all the issues at some length in the judgment and I do not
propose revisiting everything for the purpose
of this application
and judgment.
After
due reflection I have come to the conclusion that there is no
reasonable prospect that another court will come to a different
conclusion and the order that I make is ,ha, the application is
dismissed with costs.