REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
1.REPORTABLE: NO
2.OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3.REVISED : NO
Judge Dippenaar
CASE NO: B4469/2023
In the matter between:
ZEDA CAR LEASING (PTY) LTD T/A AVIS FLEET APPLICANT
AND
LIFEMED EMERGENCY SERVICES (PTY)LTD RESPONDENT
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDG MENT
14 MARCH 2025
Page 2
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’
legal representatives by e -mail. The date and time for hand -down is deemed
to be 1 0h00 on the 14th of March 2025.
DIPPENAAR J:
[1] The parties are referred to as in the main application. The respondent, as applicant
for leave to appeal, seeks leave to appeal the whole of the judgment and order granted
by me on 6 March 2025 to the Full Bench (sic) Full Court alternatively to the Supreme
Court of Appeal . In terms of the order , the respondent was directed to return certain
vehicles t o the applicant pending the finalisation of an action to be instituted by the
applicant within 30 days of the order, together with ancillary relief.
[2] Some eleven grounds of appeal are advanced why the court misdirected itself. At
the hearing, the respondent abandoned all but one, persisting with the contention that the
applicant ha d not established the requirements of the rei vindicatio and that this court
erred in finding that it did.
[3] I have considered the papers filed of record and the grounds set out in the
application for leave to appeal as well as the parties’ extensive arguments for and against
the granting of leave to appeal. I have further considered the submissions made in their
respective heads of argument and the authorities referred to by the res pective parties.
[4] My judgment is comprehensive and I stand by the reasons set out therein.
[5] Applications for leave to appeal are regulated by s 17(1) of the Superior Courts
Act1. Leave to appeal may only be granted where a court is of the opinion that the appeal
would have a reasonable prospect of success, which prospects are not too remote2. A
1 10 of 2013
2 Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress and Another [2021] JOL 49993 (SCA) para [10] ; S v
Notshokovu 2016 JDR 1647 (SCA) para [2], Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v
Page 3
sound rational basis for the conclusion that there are prospects of success must be shown
to exist3.
[6] Considering the facts, and the grounds on which leave to appeal are sought, it
cannot be concluded that the respondent ha s illustrated reasonable prospects of success
on appeal as envisaged by s 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act.4 The respondent did not rely on the
existence of compelling reasons as envisaged by s 17(1)(a)(ii) o f the Act.
[7] I conclude that the re are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal . It follows
that the application must fail. There is no reason to deviate from the normal principle that
costs follow the result. In terms of the agreement between the parties, costs are to be on
the scale as between attorney and client.
[8] I grant the following order:
[1] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs as between attorney
and client .
____ _______
EF DIPPENAAR
JUDG E OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG PRETORIA
Democratic Alliance; In re: Democratic Alliance v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (2016)
ZAGPPHC 489 para [25]
3 Smith v S [2011] ZASCA 15; MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha [2016] ZASCA 176, para [17] .
4 MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v M khita 2016 JDR 2214 (SCA) paras 16 -18.
Page 4
APPEARANCES
DATE OF HEARING : 14 MARCH 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14 MARCH 2025
APPLICANTS’ COUNSEL : Adv TP Kruger SC
APPLICANTS’ ATTORNEYS : Rothmann Phahlamohlaka Inc.
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL : Adv J Schoeman
RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEYS : Van Der Walt Attorneys Inc.