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 977
|
|
Stanger N.O v Stanger (24227/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 977 (30 September 2024)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 24227/2021
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
Date:
30 September 2024
E
van der Schyff
In
the matter between:
Aaron
Stanger N.O.
Applicant
and
Bradley
Brett Stanger
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Van
der Schyff J
[1]
I handed down a written
judgment in this matter on 24 August 2024. The applicant filed an
application for leave to appeal, and the
application was heard on 16
September 2024.
[2]
Several grounds of
appeal were listed. After having considered the papers filed of
record, the judgment handed down, and the grounds
of appeal, I am not
of the opinion that another court would come to a different
conclusion.
[3]
Counsel for the
applicant submitted that I did not consider the full factual context
of the matter. If regard is had to the written
judgment and, in
particular, the introduction section where I summarised the facts, it
is evident that I did consider the full
factual context in
considering the application.
[4]
I am, specifically, not
of the opinion that another court would find that the applicant
proved that the respondent’s sequestration
would be to the
advantage of the whole body of creditors. Since I explained the
reasons for my order in the written judgment and
stand by it, it is
unnecessary to revisit the issues.
[5]
Section 17
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
prescribes that leave to appeal may
only be granted where the judge is of the opinion that the appeal
would have a reasonable prospect
of success, or that there is some
other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. The
jurisdictional facts for granting
leave to appeal, captured in
section 17(1)(a)
, have not been met. As a result, the application for
leave to appeal stands to be dismissed.
ORDER
In
the result, the following order is granted:
1.
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed, with costs, counsel’s costs on Scale B.
E
van der Schyff
Judge
of the High Court
Delivered:
This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
As a courtesy gesture,
it will be emailed to the parties/their legal representatives.
For the applicant:
JL Kaplan
With:
E Dreyer
Instructed by:
Aaron Stanger &
Associates
For the respondent:
MD Silver
Instructed by:
David Kotzen
Attorneys
Date of the
hearing:
16 September 2024
Date of judgment:
30 September 2024