About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZAWCHC 286
|
|
Le Roux v Dirkdale Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (7576/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 286 (6 November 2008)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE
OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE
NO:
7567/2008
DATE:
6
NOVEMBER 2008
In
the matter between:
DAVID
EDWARD LE ROUX
APPLICANT
Versus
DIRKDALE
INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD
1
st
RESPONDENT
PIETER
LOUIS MORRIS
2
nd
RESPONDENT
LINDA
ELIZABETH PASLEY
3
rd
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MAOUBELA
A.J
.
I
have
read the affidavits in support of the applications, and
I
have
listened to your arguments, both of you.
It
is always, I guess, an easy matter in an application for leave to
appeal to just simply say refused or granted, but an issue
has been
raised here for me to refuse the leave to appeal on claim A and then
granting it on claim B, which is some kind of compromise,
so to
speak. Indeed for my part, I am convinced that the judgment on claim
A is a sound one.
I
have
read all the papers to just make sure that I understood, firstly, the
issues that were raised during the trial and
I
am
convinced that at least the judgment that I had arrived at was the
only possibility, given the circumstances and the facts and
the
argument of the case before me.
But
because, obviously, legal contestation is not a mathematical equation
strictly speaking, you will always find that there are
varying
approaches to one single issue, I agree with the approach that a
different Court may arrive at a different decision on
claim B, on
claim A I do not think I need to grant leave there; so the order then
would be that leave to appeal on claim A is
REFUSED
and leave to appeal on claim B is
GRANTED
MAQUBELA,
AJ