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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 841
|
|
Lourens DP (Pty) Ltd v Engelbrecht N.O and Others (048287/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 841 (2 September 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
Case
No. 048287/2022
(1) REPORTABLE:
YES
/
NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/
NO
(3) REVISED
DATE:
02
September 2024
SIGNATURE:
In
the matter between:
LOURENS
DP (PTY) LTD
PLAINTIFF
And
ENGELBRECHT,
NICOLIEN
N.O
1
ST
DEFENDANT
ENGELBRECHT,
NICOLIEN
2
ND
DEFENDANT
VLEISSENTRAAL
EINDOMME (PTY) LTD
3
RD
DEFENDANT
MEYER
ATTORNEYS INCORPORATED
4
TH
DEFENDANT
Coram:
Millar
J
Heard
on:
28
August 2024
Delivered:
02
September 2024 - This judgment was handed down electronically
by circulation to the parties' representatives by email,
by
being uploaded to the
CaseLines
system of the
GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is
deemed to be 10H00 on 02 September
2024.
ORDER
It
is Ordered
:
[1]
The application for leave to appeal is
refused with costs, which costs are to include the costs of
counsel on scale C.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1]
On 18 July 2024 I granted judgment in
favour of the plaintiff against the third and fourth defendants as
follows:
[1.1]
The third defendant is ordered to make payment to the plaintiff of
the sum of R849 250,00 together
with interest thereon
a
tempore morae
from 18 July 2022 to date of payment, both days
inclusive;
[1.2]
The fourth defendant is ordered to make payment to the plaintiff of
the sum of R87 637,50 together
with interest thereon
a
tempore morae
from 18 July 2022 to date of payment, both days
inclusive;
[1.3]
The third and fourth defendants, jointly and severally the one
paying, the other to be absolved are
ordered to pay the plaintiff’s
costs of suit which costs are to include the costs of counsel on
scale C.
[2]
This is an application for leave to appeal
against a judgment and order handed down on 28 June 2024.
[3]
For convenience I will refer to the parties
as they were in the main application, save to note that it is the
third and fourth defendants
who seek leave to appeal and the
plaintiff who opposes its grant.
[4]
The
test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present
matter is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts
Act
[1]
as follows:
“
(
1)
Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned
are of the opinion that
(a)
(i) the appeal would
have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) there is
some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration”
[5]
I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been
brought and the
reasons given by me in the judgment for the order
granted. The grounds are a repetition of what was argued and
considered before
me initially and there is no need to traverse this
terrain again. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel
for the
granting of leave to appeal on the part of the defendants and
those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the
plaintiff.
[6]
I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different
conclusion or that
there is some other compelling reason why leave to
appeal should be granted.
[7]
The costs will follow the result.
[8]
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
[8.1]
The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs, which
costs are
to include the costs of counsel on scale C.
A MILLAR
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
HEARD ON:
28 AUGUST 2024
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:
02 SEPTEMBER 2024
COUNSEL FOR THE
PLAINTIFF:
ADV. J VAN DEN BERG SC
INSTRUCTED BY:
SEYMORE DU TOIT &
BASSON
REFERENCE:
MR. M DAY
COUNSEL
FOR THE 3
RD
& 4
TH
DEFENDANTS:
ADV.
L MALAN
ADV.
W DE BEER
INSTRUCTED
FOR THE 3
RD
DEFENDANT BY:
STEFAN
SWART ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE:
MR.
S SWART
INSTRUCTED
FOR THE 4
TH
DEFENDANT BY:
GUSTAV
MEYER ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE:
MR.
G MEYER
NO
APPEARANCE FOR THE 1
ST
OR 2
ND
DEFENDANTS
[1]
10
of 2013.