About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 953
|
|
Nuharvest and Others v Mcquarrie N.O (2024/084385) [2025] ZAGPJHC 953 (19 September 2025)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 2024/084385
DOH:
15 September 2025
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)
REVISED.
NUHARVEST
(PTY) LTD
First Applicant
JARED
DEAN PETERS
Second Applicant
TANNER
ARON PETERS
Third Applicant
And
ADEL
DOREEN MCQUARRIE N.O
Respondent
(
In
her nominal capacity as the Court appointed
Receiver
of the assets of the Dennis Ronald Peters Will
Trust
IT No. T007360/2001
)
This
Judgment was handed down electronically and by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by way of email and
shall be
uploaded on Caselines. The date for hand down is deemed to be on
19
September 2025.
JUDGMENT
MALI
J
Introduction
[1]
This
is an application by the first, second and third applicants (“the
applicants’) for leave to appeal to the full
bench of this
Court, alternatively to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole
of the Judgment and order dated 12 August 2025.
The Applicants Grounds
for Appeal
[2]
The
applicants’ grounds of appeal are that the court erred in
finding as follows:
2.1
That
there was no evidence that the respondent had failed to exercise her
discretion as the Court-appointed receiver of the assets
of the
Dennis Peters Will Trust (“the Trust”) reasonably and
honestly. Furthermore, that since 2021 the respondent
had only
managed to transfer one property when, in fact, the respondent has to
date failed to transfer any of the Properties to
the beneficiaries of
the Trust namely the second and third applicants.
2.2
That
in terms of paragraph 1.4.16 of the order of His Lordship Mr Justice
Manoim (“the Order”), the respondent was only
entitled to
distribute the assets of the Trust or the value of such assets to the
beneficiaries of the Trust, namely the second
and third applicants,
in equal shares, after all the debts due and all liabilities owed by
the Trust had been paid or settled.
[3]
In
essence all the findings in the judgment is challenged. I am not
going to overburden this judgment with repetitions.
Applicable Law
[4]
Section
17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (“the Act”)
reads in relevant parts as follows:
“
Leave
to appeal may only be granted where the Judge or Judges concerned are
of the opinion that:
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;
“
[5]
In
MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v
Mkhitha
[2016] ZASCA 176
it was
held as follows:
“
[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 leave to appeal may 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.”
[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
.”
Discussion
[6]
The
applicants’ case has always been about the court order of
Manoin J as discussed in the judgment. In this application
they
seek to make a new case entirely based on Asset-for-Share Agreement
(“the Agreement”), thus arguing that because
the
respondent had advised the applicant on the Agreement therefore the
trust property can simply be transferred. The transfer
must happen
without the respondent exercising her fiduciary duties in a
reasonable manner.
[7]
There
is also an issue of factual error, that the respondent had
transferred a single property. This does not take matters any
further. I do not intend to repeat what is already alluded to in the
judgment. The crux of the matter is that the applicants have
refused
to provide a perfect bank guarantee to cover the trust’s debts.
This puts the respondent in a precarious position
and the court could
not sanction such.
Conclusion
[8]
For
the foregoing reasons the applicants have not shown that other
court
would come to a different conclusion. I cannot find any prospects of
success.
[9]
Having
regard to the above, leave to appeal cannot succeed.
ORDER
1.
Leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs on Scale C.
N P MALI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
Date of
Hearing:
15 September 2025
Date of
Judgment:
19 September
2025
Appearances
For the applicant
Adv P Bosman
Instructed by:
Brand
Potgieter Inc
Email:
corien@brandpotgieter.com
/
tarryn@brandpotgieter.com/
Nombuso@brandpotgieter.com
Tel: 011 781 0169
For the respondent:
Adv
MT Costa
Instructed
by:
Reenen Van Reenen Inc
Email:
reenen@rvrlaw.co.za
/
nicole@rvrlaw.co.za/
anzel@rvrlaw.co.za
Tel:
010 035 4275