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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPPHC 144
|
|
Nesane and Another v Pollock N.O and Others (Leave to Appeal) (56445/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 144 (13 February 2025)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 56445/2020
1.
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
2.
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
3.
REVISED:
YES
/ NO
DATE: 13 February 2025
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE:
In the matter between:
TSHIANNE ONICA NESANE
First Applicant
AZIMBO
LODGE CLOSE CORPORATION
Second Applicant
and
RICHARD
KEAY POLLOCK N.O
First Respondent
NURJEHAN
ABDOOL GAFAAR OMAR N.O
Second
Respondent
OSCAR
JABULANI SITHOLE N.O
Third
Respondent
IGNATIUS
CLEMENT MIKATEKO SHIRILELE N.O
Fourth Respondent
MICHELLE
SCHUTTE N.O
Fifth
Respondent
(In
their capacities as the Joint liquidators of the Sixth Respondent)
VELE
INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Sixth Respondent
JUDGMENT – LEAVE
TO APPEAL
[1]
The applicants applied for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of
Appeal , alternatively full
of the bench of the Gauteng Division,
Pretoria against the order and ensuing judgment handed down by this
Court on 04 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 compiled on 18
December 2024 and I do not propose
to furnish further reasons, the
applicants in their Leave to Appeal argued on 13 February 2025, then
not substantively advancing
their propositions further.
[4]
Sec 17 (1) of the Superior Court Act No 10
of 2023 (“The Act”) provides:
“
Leave to Appeal
may only be given where the judges concerned are of the 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 judgements 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, LCC 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.
[6]
In my opinion the applicants 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 applicants’ grounds of
appeal and reasons therefore not justifying leave to appeal being
granted and there is no compelling
reasons to grant 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 application for leave to appeal the order and
judgment dated 04 November 2024 is dismissed; and
2.
The
applicants are ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the
application on a party and party scale, and at scale B for
legal
counsel.
JOHN RICHARD MEADEN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
PRETORIA
Appearances
For Applicants:
Adv. G Lebethe
Instructed by:
Maphoso Mokoena
Attorneys Inc.
For Respondents:
Adv. K Iles
Instructed by:
Werksmans Attorneys
Date
of Hearing:
13
February 2025
Date
of Judgment:
13
February 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 11h00 on this 13
th
day of February 2025.