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 980
|
|
Great Cormorant Investments 75 (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (2022/23073) [2025] ZAGPJHC 980 (1 October 2025)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
(1)
REPORTABLE:
NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
NO
(3)
REVISED:
NO
Date:
01 October
2025
Case
no.
2022/23073
In
the matter between:
GREAT
CORMORANT INVESTMENTS 75 (PTY) LTD
APPLICANT
And
EKURHULENI
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENT
Coram
:
Dlamini J
(Via MS Teams)
Date
of hearing:
19 September 2025
Delivered
:
01 October 2025 – This judgment was handed
down electronically
by circulation to the parties' representatives
via
email, by
being uploaded to
CaseLines,
and by release to SAFLII. The
date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on 01 October 2025.
JUDGMENT
DLAMINI
J
Introduction
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
the judgment and order that I handed down on 25 February 2025.
[2]
In the main action, the respondent,
Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (“EMM”), instituted
proceedings against the
applicant (“Cormorant”), claiming
payment in the amount of R12,103,547.16 for alleged arrears of
rental. breach
of the lease agreement. Having entered an
appearance to defend, the applicant then raised a special plea of
prescription, alleging
that a substantial portion of the respondent’s
claim had become prescribed.
[3]
The plaintiff (respondent) denied that its
claim had prescribed and insists that the debt became due only when
the arbitration award
was delivered on 18 September 2020.
[4]
By agreement, the parties agreed that the
applicant’s special plea of prescription be separated and dealt
with by way of a
stated case and argument.
[5]
Having considered the matter, I dismissed
the applicant’s point
in limine
.
Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant filed this application for
leave to appeal. The applicant contends that this court erred
and is
therefore seeking leave to appeal against my entire order and
judgment.
[6]
The respondent opposes this application for
leave to appeal.
[7]
Section 17 of the Superior Court Act
stipulates that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge
or judges concerned are
of the opinion that:
7.1.
The appeal would have reasonable prospects of success; or
7.2.
There is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be
heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration
.
[8]
This simply illustrates that a court may
not grant leave to appeal where the threshold that warrants such
leave has not been met
by the applicant.
[9]
I have considered the applicant’s
grounds of appeal and the submissions made by both the applicant and
the respondent in this
application for leave to appeal.
I am satisfied that I
have dealt extensively with all the appellant’s submissions in
my judgment, and I found them to be meritless
and dismissed them.
Thus, it will serve no purpose for me to repeat them.
[10]
Having regard to the provisions of Section
17 and the factual matrix of this matter, I am not persuaded that
there are any reasons
or extraordinary circumstances that warrant the
grant of leave to appeal. There are no compelling reasons why the
appeal should
be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter
under consideration.
[11]
My finding is that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that another court would reach a different decision
and that the applicant
should be granted leave to appeal.
[12]
In light of all the circumstances alluded
to above, it is my view that the applicant has not presented any
facts demonstrating that
it has any prospects of success; therefore,
it would not serve the interest of justice to grant leave to appeal
to the applicant.
[13]
I therefore make the following order.
ORDER
1.
The applicant’s application for leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs.
J DLAMINI
Judge of the High
Court
Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
For
the Applicant:
J
Pretorius
pretorius@maisels.co.za
Instructed
by:
Sim
Attorneys Inc.
lucia@simattorneys.co.za
For
the Respondent:
Adv.
P V Ternent
trisht@counsel.co.za
Instructed
by:
Wright
Rose-Innes Inc.
graemec@wri.co.za