About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 136
|
|
Maritz v Heiberg Estates (Leave to Appeal) (004005/2026) [2026] ZAGPPHC 136 (2 March 2026)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO:
004005/2026
HEARD ON: 25 FEBRUARY 2026
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: 2 MARCH 2026
(1) REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/ NO
(3) REVISED
DATE : 2 MARCH 2026
SIGNATURE
In the application of:
RENEE
MARITZ
APPLICANT
AND
HEIBERG
ESTATES
RESPONDENT
IN RE:
HEIBERG
ESTATES
APPLICANT
AND
RENEE
MARITZ
FIRST RESPONDENT
CORNELIUS JOHANNES
MARTIZ
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Strijdom
J
1.
In
this matter the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Full Court of
this division against the whole of my judgment and order
dated 20
January 2026 and 17 February 2026 in which this Court granted the
urgent application of the respondent with costs.
2.
The
application for leave to appeal is opposed by the respondent.
3.
The
grounds of appeal are set out in the application for leave to appeal
I do not intend to repeat same.
4.
Section
17(1)(a)
of the
Superior Courts’ Act 10 of 2013
provides that
leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge or judges
concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would
have a reasonable
prospect of success; or if there is some compelling reason why the
appeal should be heard including conflicting
judgments on the matter
under consideration.
5.
Each
application for leave to appeal must be decided on its own facts.
6.
It
is now trite that an appellant faces a higher and stringent threshold
in terms of the Act. 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.
7.
In
respect of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant my judgment
deals with the facts and the law as presented by the parties
and how
the Court arrived at each conclusion on the contentions raised by the
parties.
8.
When
the facts and the law were examined, there is in my view no sound and
rational basis for the conclusion that the appeal would
have a
reasonable prospect of success.
9.
I
am also of the view that there are no compelling reasons why the
appeal should be heard.
10.
In
the result, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with
costs which costs are to be taxed with scale B.
Strijdom JJ
Judge of the
Hight Court, South Africa
Gauteng
Division, Pretoria
Appearances
:
For the
applicant:
Mr P Rapea (Attorney)
For the
respondent: Adv. MM Boonzaaier
Instructed
by:
Naude
& Naude Attorneys