SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: 033832/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: No
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
(3) REVISED:
DATE 4 DECEMBER 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
CENTRAL BRIDGE TRADING 435 (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
FARIDA HAFFEJEE N.O First Respondent
ZUNAID SALOOJEE Second Respondent
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Third Respondent
MOHAMED SADEQ CASSOOJEE N.O Fourth Respondent
MOHAMMED HAFFEJEE N.O Fifth Respondent
This judgment is prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected as
such and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties / their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for handing down is deemed to be 4th December 2025.
JUDGMENT
RETIEF J
INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant, Central Bridge Trading 435 (Pty) Ltd [Central Bridge] applies
for leave in terms of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of
2013 to the Supreme Court of Appeal, alternatively to the ‘Full Bench ’ of this
Honourable Court against paragraphs 3 and 5 of the order of this Court dated 15
October 2025 in which its application was dismissed and that each party bear their
own costs.
[2] The Court accepts that the reference to the ‘Full Bench’ is in fact a
typographical error, although Counsel for Central Bridge did not raise it, it should
read to the “Full Court” of the above Honourable Court.
[3] Be that as it may, t he basis upon which leave is sought by Central Bridge
can be narrowed down to three main grounds, namely the Court’s:
3.1. misappreciation of the common cause facts ( the existence of a lease
over Erf 3[...], W[...] East, Extension 38 Township, North West
Province [erf 3[...]]) on the papers;
3.2. misdirection in that it determined issues which were not before it; and
3.3. failure to determine all the issues before it, that being the second test
pertaining to declaratory relief in circumstances when the court found
that Central Bridge had failed to demonstrate the first test in its
founding papers.
[4] The three grounds can conveniently and succinctly be dealt with together.
This is because one must be reminded on what basis Central Bridge brought and
argued its case. Central Bridge contended that it brought a crisp issue before the
Court which it argued could be determined by simply having regard to the written
notarial registered lease [the document], which it sought to declare invalid for want
of certain essentialia of lease agreement.
[5] To do so , Central Bridge, in its founding papers , called upon this Court to
apply section 21 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 [Section 21 test] and
stated the following in support thereof:
“68. Central Bridge has an interest in the legal status of an agreement
(the document-own emphasis) to which it is a party, which lease
agreement constitutes a significant incursion on immovable property
owned by Central Bridge (on the common cause facts, erf 3[...]- own
emphasis) and is self-evidently extremely prejudiced to it.’’
[6] Considering all the facts, including the common cause fact that the
respondent carried on business on the leased property erf 3[...], ex facie the
document, the description of erf 3[...] was not contained therein nor defined as “the
property” but, rather erf 3[...] together with erf 3[...].
[7] In argument, at the hearing of the leave to appeal , Counsel for Central
Bridge for the first time , conceded th at such error appeared in the document.
However, he simply brushed it off as a typographical error and stated that, as a
fact, it was of no moment that the title deed of erf 3[...] was correctly endorsed .
However, as this Court repeatedly stated in its judgment, no copy of the title deed
in respect of erf 3[...] was placed before Court to consider.
[8] Having regard to th e glaring error namely that erf 3[...] did not appear from
the document Central Bridge sought this Court to consider in determining its relief,
the document Central Bridge sought this Court to consider in determining its relief,
the Court found , when applying the section 21 test , that no interest in an erf 3[...]
as set out in the document appeared which could result in a “ -significant incursion
on immovable property owned by Central Bridge.”
[9] Furthermore, to enable the Court to exercise a discretion judicially, if called
to when applying the second leg of the section 21 test, the Court considered all the
facts placed before it , including the common cause facts . In so doing, it did not
deal with issues that were not before it simply listed the inconsistencies emanating
from the facts placed before it. In this way a reader could clearly understand what
facts had weight upon which reliance could be made on motion.
[10] Applying the section 21 test as invited, and relying on the test as set out in
the Coridant matter,1 it is trite that upon the Court’s finding that Central Bridge
failed to establish a future or contingent right, as alleged in the founding papers, it
is not encumbered upon a Court to consider the second leg of the two-stage
enquiry. As such, the Court did not have to deal with the remaining issues and ,
said as much. Furthermore, it stated that even if it had, too many inconsistencies
revealed themselves, as highlighted, for a discretion to tip in favour of Central
Bridge.
[11] Therefore, considering all of the above, and the common cause facts which
relate to erf 3[...], such common cause facts do not disturb the outcome ex facie
the document containing the lease agreement called upon to be declared invalid.
[12] In the premises, this Court is of the opinion that Central Bridge has not met
the threshold of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act and in
consequence, the leave to appeal fails.
[13] There is no reason why the costs should not follow the result.
[14] The following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First, Fourth and Fifth Respondents,
Counsel’s fees to be taxed on scale C.
1 Coridant Trading CC v Daimler Chrysler Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (237/2004) [2005 ]
ZASCA 50.
L.A. RETIEF
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division
Appearances:
For the Applicant: A.R. Bhana SC
Cell: 083 377 6315
Email: rafik@bhanasc.com
Advocate S. Mohammed
Cell: 071 174 7675
Email: suhail@counsel.co.za
Instructed by attorneys: Knowles Husain Lindsay Inc
Email: mjh@khl.co.za
For the First, Fourth and Fifth Respondent: A.C. Botha SC
Cell: 083 458 2282
Email: adrianbotha@law.co.za
Instructed by attorneys: Shaheed Dollie Attorneys
Email: reception@sdollieinc.co.za
Date application leave argued: 27 November 2025
Date of judgment: 04 December 2025