Reportable:
Circulate to Judges:
Circulate to Regional Magistrates:
YES / NO
YES / NO
YES / NO
YES / NO C irculate to Magistrates:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
In the matter between:
INNOCENTIA MIRACLES PIENAAR
MOTLALEPULA SEGAMI
and
JEROME PHENYO RAADT
DERICK CORNS
SCARLET SUN 15 (PTY) LTD
BLUE DUST 7 (PTY) LTD
THE COMMISSIONER OF , COMPANIES AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION
In re:
JEROME PHENYO RAADT
SARAH KOUS
SCARLET SUN 15 (PTY) LTD
BLUE DUST 7 (PTY) LTD
and
THOMAS SWARTS
HENRY LANGEVELD
LYDIA MODISE
~NA~LEREUBENDUBE
INNOCENTIA MIRACLES PIENAAR
MOTLALEPULA SEGAMI
MARGARET SWARTS
GLORIA PETERSON
Case no: 2277/2024
First Applicant
Second Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
First Applicant
Second Applicant
Third Applicant
Fourth Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent
Seventh Respondent
Eighth Respondent
EVELINA MOKHENGWANE
ALL THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE SYDNEY
ON V AAL COMMUNAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
MOKUENA ATTORNEYS
THE DIRECTOR: TENURE REFORM
IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PSSC: NC
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPANIES AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION
Coram: MAMOSEBO J
Heard: 04 September 2025.
Delivered: 17 October 2025.
2
Ninth Respondent
Tenth Respondent
Eleventh Respondent
Twelfth Respondent
Thirteenth Respondent
Summary: Application for leave to appeal - Reliance on s 17(1)(a)(i) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 - Whether the envisaged appeal has
reasonable prospects of success.
ORDER
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
MamoseboJ
[1] The applicants seek leave to appeal against the judgment and order of
this Court handed down on 25 July 2025 to the Supreme Court of
Appeal, alternatively, the Full Court of this Division. The application is in
terms of s 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act1 in that the applicants
contend that reasonable prospects for a successful appeal exist.
[2] The trite principle is that leave to appeal may only be granted where the
Judge or Judges are of the opinion that either the appeal would have a
reasonable prospect of success; or there is some other compelling
1 10 of 2013.
3
reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments
on the matter under consideration.2
[3] This Court clearly outlined at paragraph 2 of its judgment what stood for
determination therein. 3 The first ground on which leave to appeal is
sought is misplaced. This is because this Court did not conduct an
enquiry but stated its view that order 2.3 by Williams J which ordered the
respondents to furnish the applicants with all the decisions, reports and
financial statements from 28 June 2024 to 11 April 2025 within 48 hours
was final in effect. This Court accepted that Scarlet Sun 15 (Pty) Ltd was
dormant and had not traded for some time, and therefore did not produce
financial statements or reports during the stated period.
[4] Further, Annexures "A" and "D", which were already placed in
possession of the applicants before the application was heard, did not
form part of the contempt of court application, and the applicants only
handed a copy of Annexure "A" in the application for leave to appeal
proceedings. The fact that the annexures were not before me when I
considered the matter led to my finding at paragraph 14 of the main
judgment, where I found that the Plascon-Evans principle was
applicable. I am not persuaded that the applicants have shown non
compliance with the terms of the order. Resultantly, wilfulness and ma/a
fides on the part of the respondents cannot be presumed; therefore,
contempt beyond reasonable doubt is not established.
[5] Section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act is clear and unambiguous and
stipulates that:
'Subject to subsections (2) and (3), and unless the court under exceptional
circumstances orders otherwise, the operation and execution of a decision
2 See inter a/ia MEG for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha and Another (1221/2015) [2016]
ZASCA 176 (25 November 2016) para 16 and 17; Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory
(Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) para 2; Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress
(Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) para 2; Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress
and Another(724!2019) [2021] ZASCA 31 (31 March 2021) para 10.
3 See Pienaar and Another v Raadt and Others (2277 /2024) [2025] ZANCHC 64 (25 July 2025).
4
which is the subject of an application for leave to appeal or of an appeal, is
suspended pending the decision of the application or appeal.'
The respondents have filed an application for leave to appeal
Williams J's order and, because the reasons were not yet furnished,
indicated that they would supplement the grounds of appeal after
obtaining reasons for the order.
(6] Costs are in the discretion of the court provided that the discretion is
exercised judiciously.4 Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the main judgment dealt
with the aspect of costs.
[7] Regard being had to the papers filed, and having carefully and
dispassionately considered the application for leave to appeal in order
to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court
would come to a different finding than this Court had reached, I have not
found any. There are, in my view, neither cognisable prospects of
success nor compelling reasons that warrant the attention of the Full
Court of this Division, alternatively, the Supreme Court of Appeal, to
entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal
must fail.
[8] In the result, the following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION
4 See inter a/ia Fripp v Gibbon and Co 1913 AD 354; Intercontinental Exports (Pty) Ltd v Fow les
[1999) 2 All SA 304 (A) para 25.
Appearances
Obo the Applicants:
On instructions of:
Obo the Respondents:
On instructions of:
Adv. JK Mongala
Mokuena Attorneys
c/o Mosikare Attorneys
Adv. Barnard Knoetze SC
Van De Wall Inc
5