Brilliant Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd and Others (042792/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 713 (14 July 2025)

30 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal against judgment and order — Test for granting leave to appeal as per section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 — Court not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that compelling reasons exist for the appeal — Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

I .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF3SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
CASE NO: 042792/2023
(1) REPORTAB LE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: N
(3) REVISED.
DATE 14/07/2025 LENYAI J
In the matter of:
BRILLIANT TELECOMMUNICATIONS (PTY) LTD
And
AL TRON TMT (PTY) LTD
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
CBX TECH (PTY) LTD Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
The judgment and order are published and distributed electronically. The date and
time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 14 July 2025
JUDGMENT
LENYAI J
1
1. This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the applicant against the
judgment and order granted by me on the 7th April 2025.
2. The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is
set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 as follows:
"(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
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration."
3. I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought
and the reasons given by me for the judgment and the order. I have also con­
sidered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal
on the part of the applicant and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal
on behalf of the first respondent.
4. I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or
that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be
granted.
5. In the circumstances, I make the following order:
5.1 The application for leave to appeal is refused.
5.2 The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent o
C.
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
2
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant:
Instructed by
Counsel for the First Respondent
Instructed by
Date of hearing
Date of Judgement : Adv Ralikhuvhana
Katlego Ralikhuvhana Mokgola Inc
: Adv Prinsloo
: Lowndes Dlamini Incorporated
11JULY2025
14 JULY 2025
3