About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPPHC 922
|
|
Tayob and Others v Samons and Others (130746/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 922 (15 September 2025)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
Case
No. 130746/2025
In the matter between:
TAYOB, MOHAMED
MAHIER N.O
1
ST
APPLICANT
NORTHWEST TRANSPORT
INVESTMENTS (SOC) LTD (IN BUSINESS RESCUE)
2
ND
APPLICANT
NORTHWEST STAR
(SOC) LTD
(IN BUSINESS
RESCUE)
3
RD
APPLICANT
ATTERIDGEVILLE BUS
SERVICES (SOC) LTD
(IN BUSINESS
RESCUE)
4
TH
APPLICANT
And
SAMONS, THOMAS
HENDRICK N.O
1
ST
RESPONDENT
MEC FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SAFETY & TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, NORTH
WEST PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
2
ND
RESPONDENT
MEC FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF PROVINCIAL TREASURY OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT
3
RD
RESPONDENT
MEC FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF ROADS & TRANSPORT GAUTENG PROVINCE
4
TH
RESPONDENT
ABSA BANK LTD
5
TH
RESPONDENT
TANSNAT COACHLINES
(PTY) LTD
6
TH
RESPONDENT
TRIPONZA TRADING
548 CC
7
TH
RESPONDENT
ALL AFFECTED
PERSONS LISTED IN ANNEXURE X
8
TH
RESPONDENT
Coram:
Millar
J
Heard
on:
11
September 2025
Delivered:
15
September 2025 - This judgment was handed down electronically
by circulation to the parties' representatives by email,
by
being uploaded to the
CaseLines
system of the
GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is
deemed to be 08H30 on 15 September
2025.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1]
The
applicants have applied for leave to appeal against an order granted
by me on 2 September 2025 in which the application was
dismissed due
to the first applicant having no
locus
standi
.
This was the sole issue which, by agreement was to be
determined.
[1]
The
second respondent did not appear at the hearing of the main
application but has now, made common cause with the applicants in
seeking leave to appeal the judgment. The second respondent delivered
a notice of appeal of its own.
[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
[2]
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 by both
the applicants and the second respondent and the
reasons given by me in the judgment for the order granted. The
grounds are in
my view a repetition of what was argued and considered
before me initially and there is no need to traverse this terrain
again.
[4]
I have also considered the submissions made in court and in the
respective heads of
argument where these were filed, for the granting
of leave to appeal on the part of the applicants and second
respondent and those
opposing the granting of leave to appeal on
behalf of the first, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents.
[5]
I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different
conclusion.
It was argued that there may be a notional
lacuna
in the time periods when one has regard to section 18(1) of the
Superior Courts Act read together with section 129(5) and section
139(3) of the Companies Act. This it was argued, constituted a
substantial and compelling reason why leave ought nevertheless
to be
granted. In the present matter, factually, this
lacuna
did not arise and so while the issue may be of academic interest, it
will in my view have no bearing on the outcome of any appeal.
It is thus in the circumstances not a substantial or compelling
reason either for the granting of leave to appeal.
[6]
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
[6.1]
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[6.2]
The applicant and the second respondent, jointly and
severally, are
ordered to pay the costs of the respondents who opposed the
application for leave to appeal on the scale as between
party and
party, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the engagement
of two counsel. The scale of counsel’s
costs is scale C.
_____________________________
A MILLAR
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
HEARD
ON:
11 SEPTEMBER
2025
JUDGMENT DELIVERED
ON:
15 SEPTEMBER 2025
COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT:
ADV.
G HULLEY SC
INSTRUCTED
BY:
MAYET INC.
REFERENCE:
MR. A MAYET
COUNSEL FOR THE 1
st
RESPONDENT: ADV. AJ DANIELS SC
ADV. C
DE VILLIERS-GOLDING
INSTRUCTED
BY:
RICHTER
ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE:
MR. B RICHTER
COUNSEL FOR THE 2
nd
RESPONDENT: ADV. T
MATHOPO
INSTRUCTED
BY:
MOSIRE TSIANE
ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE:
MR. RAMASHALA
COUNSEL FOR THE
6
TH
,
7
TH
AND
ONE OF THE 8
TH
RESPONDENTS:
ADV. A GOVENDER SC
ADV. M
DAFEL
INSTRUCTED
BY:
CUZEN RANDEREE DYASI INC.
REFERENCE:
MR. Z RANDEREE
NO APPEARANCE FOR THE
3
RD
, 4
TH
AND 5
TH
RESPONDENTS
[1]
There
were other issues which were resolved by agreement and made an order
of court, but they did not require any decision by
the court. These
are mentioned in the main judgment but have no bearing on the
present application.
[2]
10
of 2013.