REPUBL IC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
11 } REPORT ABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO '
Dote: 3 March 2025 E van der Schyff
In the application for leave to appeal:
AHMED CARRIM N.0.
MUSTAFA MOHAMED N.O.
BP JEAN AVENUE CC (in liquidation )
and
BP SOUTHERN AFRICA PROPRIETARY LIMITED
VEECO HOLDINGS PROPRIETARY LIMITED
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPO LITAN MUNICIPALITY
JUDGMENT CASE NO.: 2023-098436
First Applicant
Second Applicant
Third Applicant
First Respondent
Second Responde nt
Third Respondent
2
Van der Schyff J
[1] The applicants apply for leave to appeal against the judgment and the orders handed
down on 20 January 2025. The applicants in the application for leave to appeal were
the applicants in the main application.
[2] The applicants contend that I erred in finding that the jurisdictional requirements of
section 341 (2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 ("Companies Act") were not met
when I dismissed the main application .
[3] They submit that section 341 (2) of the Companies Act had to be interpreted to align
with the provisions of section 227 of the 1948 Act on which the 1973 Companies Act
was premised and the previous 1955 South African Companies Act.
[4] The applicants contend that this matter and the court's finding raise a novel point
and that the Supreme Court of Appeal should have the opportunity to interpret
section 341 (2) of The Companies Act.
[5] The principles that a court of law must apply in considering whether leave to appeal
stands to be granted are trite and need not be repeated here. I set out the reasons
for my findings in the written judgment , and these also need not be revisited. The
legislature's language is unambiguous and clear. The legislature deliberately
refrained from repeating or re-inserting the previous statutory provisions verbatim in
section 341 (2) of the Companies Act. Where the legislature chose not to uphold the
status quo preceding the promulgation of a new Act, a contextual interpretation of
the 'new' statutory provision in its current form in the context of the 1973 Companies
Act will not benefit the applicants . I am not of the opinion that the appeal would have
a reasonable prospect of success, and the application for leave to appeal stands to
be dismissed with costs.
[6] The complexity of the application does not justify the costs of two counsel.
ORDER
2
3
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on scale B.
Evan 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.
For the applicants:
With:
Instructed by:
For the first respondent:
Instructed by:
Date of the hearing:
Date of judgment:
3 Adv. J. Hershensohn SC
Adv. R. de Leeuw
Barnard & Patel Inc.
Adv. A. Govendor
Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc.
25 February 2025
3 March 2025