(1) REPORTAB LE : NO
REPUB LIC O F SOUTH AF RIC A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
(2) O FINTERE STTOOTHERJ
(3) REVISED : NO
.11.lul;?.\1~
DATE
In the matter between:
JOHAN N ES PH ILLIPPUS FREDERICK STEYN
KAREN STEYN
RENEE MAGDALENA STEYN
PH ILLIPUS STEYN (SNR)
A2Z TRADER AND SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED
and
AA SPR ING & WIRE (PTY) LIMITED
In re:
AA SPRING & WIRE (PTY) LIMITED
and
CASE NO : 2024-111871
pt Applicant
2nd Applicant
3'd Applicant
4th Applicant
5th Applicant
Respondent
Applicant
1
JOHANNES PHILLIPPUS FREDERICK STEYN
WILLIAM GUNSTON AUGUST VICTOR
VICTOR STEEL (PTY) LIMITED
LISL COETZEE
KAREN STEYN
RENEE MAGDALENA STEYN
MR PHILLIPUS STEYN (SNR)
A2Z TRADER AND SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED
INSIMBI MANUFACTURING
LEAVE TO APPEAL
MOKOSE J
1st Respondent
2"d Respondent
3'd Respondent
4th Respondent
5th Respondent
6th Respondent
7th Respondent
8th Respondent
9th Respondent
[1] The applicants have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal alternatively,
the Full Court of this Division against the judgment and order I delivered on 10 February 2025 under
case number 111871/2024.
[2] The applicants seek leave to appeal on several grounds as stated in its application for leave to
appeal. Counsel for the applicants addressed the court on the salient points raised in the application.
These points were opposed by counsel for the respondent on the grounds that I have reasoned out
well in my judgment and made subm issions that there are no prospects of success.
[3] The test for granting an application for leave to appeal is whether there are reasonable
prospects of success. Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ("the Act") states that leave to
appeal may only be granted where the judge or judges are of the opinion that:
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) for some other compelling reason, it should be heard, including conflicting
judgements on the matter under consideration.
(b) the decision sought does not fall within the ambit of Section 16(2)(a) of the Act; and
2
(c) where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the
appeal wou ld lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties.
[4] The test laid down in Section 17 of the Act is now a subjective one and no longer an objective
test. There must be a measure of certainty that another court w ill differ from the court whose
judgment is sought to be appealed against.1 The court held in the case of The Mont Chevaux Trust v
Tina Goosen & 18 Others as follows:
"It is clear that the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgment of a High Court
has been raised in the new Act. The former test whether leave to appeal should be granted
was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion, see Van
Heerden v Cornwright & Others 1985 (2) SA 342 {T) at 343H . the use of the word "would" in
the new statute indicates a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court
whose judgment is sought to be appealed against."
(5] I had dealt in depth w ith the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my
judgement. After listening to subm issions by both counsel for the applicants and counsel for the
respondent and after reading the application for leave to appeal, I am of the view that there are no
prospects of success.
[6] In the prem ises, the following order is granted:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
For the Applicants:
On instructions of:
Adv DJ G roenewald
Serfontein Viljoen & Swart
MOKOSE J
Judge of the High Court of
South Africa Gauteng
Division, PRETORIA
1 The Mont Cheveaux Trust (IT2012/28) v Tina Goosen & 18 Others 2014 JDR 2325 at para [6]
3
For the Respondent: Adv AM Heystek SC
On instructions of: Tuckers Inc
Date of judgment: 17 November 2025
4