1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
DELETE WHI C HEVER 15 NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE :¥ESJNO
(2) OF INT ERE ST TO OTHER JUDGES: ¥ES/NO
(3) REV ISED
DAT E: 15 September 2025
SIGNAT U RE: ... ~
In the matter between:
DAMON$, JUANITO MARTIN N.O .
VAN DER MERWE, ELZERI JANE N.O.
And
BEZUIDENHOUT, LEONARD FRANCOIS
Coram: Millar J
Case No. 121475/2024
FIRST APPLICANT
SECOND APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Heard on:
Delivered:
MILLAR J
15 September 2025
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 11 HOO on
15 September 2025.
JUDGMENT
2
[1] The applicants have applied for leave to appeal against an order granted by me
on 25 August 2025 dismissing an application to set aside payments made to the
respondent and for repayment to the Company in liquidation.
[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 Act1 as follows:
1 10of2013.
"(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
[3] I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought by
the applicants 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 for the granting of leave to appeal
on the part of the applicqnts and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal
on behalf of the respondent.
[5] 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.
[6] Since Mr. Bezuidenhout again appeared in person, there will be no order for
costs.
[7] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
[7.1] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[7 .2] There is no order for costs.
A MILLAR
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD ON:
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS:
INSTRUCTED BY:
REFERENCE:
RESPONDENT :
15 SEPTEMBER 2025
15 SEPTEMBER 2025
ADV . HP WESSELS
VAN DER MERWE & ASSOCIATES
IN PERSON
4