2
NOKO J
[1] The applicants have launched an application for leave to appeal the order and the
whole judgment I handed down on 9 May 2025, wherein I, inter alia, granted an order for
payment of the amount of R36,147,859.75 against the applicants jointly and severally, the
one paying the other being absolved.
[2] The first applicant contended that I erred in accepting the case that was irregularly
introduced in the replying affidavit , which introduced a new cause of action to which an
amended certificate of balance was attached. In addition, the common law principle
regarding renunciation of the benefit of excussion should not have been invoked and does
not find application in this lis. Furthermore, I erred in not finding against the respondent
who approached the court with unclean hands. The counsel correctly contended that the
points raised reflect a mi sunderstanding of the judgment, and the issues raised were
correctly addressed in the main judgment
[3] The counsel for the second applicant pinned his argument on the contention that I
erred in granting an order for costs against the second respondent, as the delay was a result
of the liquidators to avail relevant documents timeously . Both the counsel for the first
applicant and the respondent stated that the postponement of the matter on 29 April 2025
was at the instance of the second applicant, and no argument was advanced before the main
judgment.
[1] It is trite that where the application for leave to appeal , the applicant must
demonstrate, inter alia, that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or that there
are other compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard.
[2] It is also trite1 that the Superior Court Act has introduced a higher threshold to be
met in applications for leave to appeal , and the usage of the word ‘ would’ requires the
applicant to demonstrate that another court would certainly come to a different conclusion.
applicant to demonstrate that another court would certainly come to a different conclusion.
1 See Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others 2014 JDR 2325. MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v
Mkhitha 2016 ZASCA (25 November 2016), Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v
4
Dates:
Hearing: 17 September 2025.
Judgment: 22 September 2025
Appearances:
For the first Applicant: Scheepers J, instructed by Bennecketom Inc.
For the second Applicant: Koovertjie R, instructed by Vermaak Att.
For the Respondent: Kabelo S, instructed by KWA Attorneys.
: