1
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2023 -097235
1. REPORTABLE: YES/ NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/ NO
3. REVISED: YES / NO
DATE:
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE:
In the matter between:
AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS LTD Applicant
and
TAM HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD First Respondent
TECHNOLOGY AND MINERAL HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
PIETER GIDEO VAN DER MERWE Third Respondent
PRETORIUS CHEMICAL CONSULTATION (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent
DR GERARD PRETORIUS Fifth Respondent
2
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
[1] The First – Third Respondent s applied for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of
Appeal Bloemfontein, alternatively to the full court of the Guateng Division, Pretoria
against the order and ensuing judgment handed down by this Court on 06 November
2024.
[2] For ease of reference, the parties are referred to as in the main application.
[3] Full reasons were provided in the judgement that I co mpiled on 19 December 2024
and I do not propose to furnish further reasons, the First - Third Respondent s in their
Leave to Ap peal argued on 30 January 2025, then not substantively advancing their
proposition s further.
[4] Sec 17 (1) of the Superior Court Act No 10 of 2023 (“The Act”) provide s:
“Leave to Appeal may only be given where the judges concerned are of th e opinion
that:
(i) The Appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some compelling reason why the Appeal should be heard , including
conflicting judgement s on the matter under consideration ”.
[5] Sec 17(1) (a) of the Act provides a stringent test wherein the Court must be satisfied
that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. (See Mont Chevaux
Trust (IT2012/28) v Tine Goosen . Unreported, L CC Case No LCC 14R/2014, dated
3 November 2014, Notshokovu v S , unreported, SCA Case N0 157/15 dated 07
September 2016 and Erasmus Superior Court Practice . DE Van Loggenberg, Vol
Part A, R512, 2020 A2 -55.
3
[6] In my opinion the First – Third Respondent s have not met this threshold.
[7] Further, there are no conflicting judgments which would have to be considered by the
Superior Court of Appeal in terms of Sec (17(1 )(a)(ii) of the Act and the public interest
will not be served by an appeal in respect of which there is no legal uncertainty.
[8] In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that another Court will come to a different
conclusion. The First – Third Respondents ’ grounds of appeal and reasons theref ore
not justify ing leave to appeal being granted and there is no compelling reasons to gr ant
leave in terms of Sec 17(1)(a) of the Act.
ORDER
Having read the papers and heard counsel, it is ordered that:
1 The Leave to Appeal application launched at th e instance of the First – Third
Respondent s is hereby denied and dismissed.
2. The First – Third Respondent are directed to pay the costs of this Leave to Appeal
Application, on attorney and own client scale including the costs of counsel on
scale C.
____________ ______ ______ _____
JOHN RICHARD MEADEN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
PRETORIA
4
Appearances
For Applicant: Adv. LG Minn é
Instructed by: Bowmans Gilfillan Inc.
For 1st – 3rd Respond ents: Adv. R Raubenheimer
Instructed by: Willemse Potgieter & Babinszky Inc.
For 4th & 5th Respondents : No Appearance
Instructed by: Anderson -Kriel Attorneys
Date of Hearing: 30 January 2025
Date of Judgment: 31 January 2025
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ and or
parties’ representatives by email and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and
time for the hand down is deemed to be 10h00 on this ____ st day of January 2025.