IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 018984/2024
In the matter between:
QUATRO S ECURITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD First Applicant
(Registration No. 2012/107563/07)
QUATRO PROPERTY CARE (PTY) LTD Seco nd Applicant
(Registration No. 2017/532905/07)
QUATRO CLEANING SERVICES (PTY) LTD Third Applicant
(Registration No. 2012/176420/07)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
(4) Date: 05 May 2025
Signature:
2
QUATRO HORTICULTURAL SERVICES (PTY) LTD Fourth Applicant
(Registration No. 2015/ 226303/07 )
And
DE MARIONETTE CENTRE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD First Respondent
(Registration No. 2005/037870/07)
FLORA CENTRE INVESTM ENTS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
(Registration No. 2004/030198 /07)
RANGEVIEW INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Third Res pondent
(Registration No. 2005/037494 /07)
TARENTAAL CENTRE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent
(Registration No. 2005/000028/07)
WATERGLEN INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Fifth Respondent
(Regist ration No. 2005/0000 76/07)
THE VILLAGE MALL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Sixth Respondent
(Registration No. 2004 /030240/07)
WITBANK HIGHVELD INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Seventh Respondent
3
(Registration No. 2004/ 013979/07)
CARLETONVILLE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Eighth Respondent
(Registration No. 2005/037661/07)
LIBERTY MALL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Ninth Respondent
(Registration No. 2005/039152/07)
AMBER SUNRISE PROPERTIES 95 (PTY) LTD Tenth Respondent
(Registration No. 200 7/021903/07)
BORN FREE INVESTMENTS 552 (PTY) LTD Eleventh Respondent
(Registration No. 2006/011303/07)
PLANET WAVES 120 (PTY) LTD Twelfth Respondent
(Registration No. 2005/039 695/07)
JUDGMENT
NYATHI J
[1] The respondents are applying for leave to appeal against the whol e of the
judgment and costs order handed down on 27 November 2024. The applicants
in the main application are opposing the se efforts.
4
[2] The test applicable in determining whether to grant or refuse such applications
is embodied in section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
which provides that:
"17 Leave to appeal
(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the
opinion that –
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration; "
[3] In dealing with the above section and its effect on applications for leave to
appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Notshokovu v S1 remarked that
an appellant faces a higher and stringent threshold in terms of the Act compared
to the provisions of the repealed Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959.
[4] In MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha ,2 The SCA then held undeniably that
an applicant for leave to appeal now faces a more stringent test when it stated:
“[16] Once again it is necessary to say that leave to appeal, especially to this court, must
not be granted unless there truly is a reasonable prospect of success. Section 17(1)(a)
of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 makes it clear that leave to appeal m ay only be
given where the judge concerned is of the opinion that the appeal would have a
reasonable prospect of success; or there is some other compelling reason why it should
be heard.
1 (unreported, SCA case no 157/15 dated 7 September 2016)
2 Unreported, SCA case no 1221/2015 dated 25 November 2016.
5
[17] An applicant for leave to appeal must convince the court on proper grounds that
there is a reasonable prospect or realistic chance of success on appeal. A mere
possibility of success, an arguable case or one that is not hopeless, is not enough. There
must be a sound, rational basis to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of
success on appeal .”3
[5] Different considerations come into play when a court considers an application
for leave to appeal as compared to adjudicating the appeal itself. Leave to appeal
should be granted only when there is a sound and rational basis for doing so. The
principles that emerge from Four Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC v
Rattan NO4 and Independent Examinations Board v Umalusi5 require that the
court test the grounds on which leave to appeal is sought against the facts of the
case and the applicable legal principles to ascertain whether an appeal court
‘would’ interfere in the decision against which leave to appeal is sought.6
[6] The respondents base their application for leave to appeal on the contention that
the court misapplied the Plascon -Evans rule7 in dealing with Mr Myburgh’s
evidence, and that it should have found that as Myburgh submitted, there was a
common intention between the parties that their agreement bore tacit terms and
that rectification thereof shoul d have been accepted by the court. The
respondent’s version of events should have prevailed, and the application
dismissed.
[7] The applicants in the main application as in the hearing, vehemently opposed
the above submission and referred to the judgment, as being unfounded.
3 Emphasis in Erasmus RS 4, 2024, D -105.
4 2019 (3) SA 451 (SCA) at para [34].
5 Unreported, GP case no 83440/2019 dated 7 January 2021 at paras [2] – [4].
6 Erasmus – Superior Court Practice
7 Plascon -Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A).
6
[8] Having regard to the evidence in the main application, I still find that the
respondents’ denials which constitute “the disputes” as being far -fetched and
clearly untenable as justifying being rejected outright.8
[9] For this reason, I am not persuaded by the respondents’ submissions . The
application fails, and the respondents herein (Quatro Security Services) are
entitled to their costs , which should follow the outcome of the matter.
[10] I make the following order:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed . The respondents (applicants
herein) to pay Quatro Security Services’ costs, including those of two counsel
where so employed, to be taxed at scale B.
__
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 28/02/2025
Date of Judgment: 05 May 2025
On behalf of the Applicants : Adv. MP Van der Merwe SC
With him: Adv J Eastes
Instructed by: Jansen van Rensburg & Partners
E-mail: lou@jvrandpartners.co.za / jana@jvrandpartners.co.za
On behalf of the Defenda nts: Adv. L Hollander
8 See Wightman t/a JW construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another [2008] (3) SA 371
7
Instructed by: Faber Goer tz Ellis Austen Inc, Bryanston
e-mail: diaan@fgea.co.za / nicholas@fgea.co.za
c/o Friedland Hart Solomon & Nicholson ; Pretoria
Delivery : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The date for hand -
down is deemed to be 05 May 2025.