IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) REPORTABLE: No
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
(3) REVISED:
S N RE
In the matter between:
JAN ERASMUS N.O
23 February 2026
DATE
SIEBERT JACOBUS BRIEDENHANN N.O
MARIA DOROTHA JOUBERT N.O
(In their joint capacities as Trustees for the time of the FRITZ
ROOS TRUST , reference IT 8122/2001)
and
PAUL JACOBUS COETZEE
MARIUS JOHANNES MARITZ N.O
Case No: 029852/2024
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
(In his capacity as duly appointed and lawful agent acting on
behalf of JOHAN WILLEM HORN N.O in his capacity as the
duly appointed executor of Estate Late THOMAS DANIEL
RAVENSCROFT)
In re:
PAUL JACOBUS COETZEE
MARIUS JOHANNES MARITZ N.O
(In his capacity as duly appointed and lawful agent acting on
behalf of JOHAN WILLEM HORN N.O in his capacity as the
duly appointed executor of Estate Late THOMAS DANIEL
RAVENSCROFT)
and
DWARS BELEGGINGS (PTY) LTD
JAN ERASMUS N.O
SIEBERT JACOBUS BRIEDENHANN N.O
MARIA DOROTHA JOUBERT N.O
(In their joint capacities as Trustees for the time of the FRITZ
ROOS TRUST, reference IT 8122/2001)
2
First Applicant
Second Applicant
First Respondent
Second 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 I 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 23 February 2026.
RETIEF J
INTRODUCTION
JUDGMENT
(LEAVE TO APPEAL)
3
[1] The applicant, the Trustees of the Fritz Roos Trust [the Trust], seeks leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, alternatively to the Full Court of this
Division against the whole judgment and order of this Court handed down of the 12
November 2025 in which both its opposition of the main application and its counter
application was dismissed. Both the main application and the counter application
concerned the implementation of section 163(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 71
of 2008 [the Companies Act] [163 relief].
[2] Having regard to the leave of appeal argued, context is everything and
context is the lens through which the facts of this matter must be viewed. This the
Court dealt with in the introduction of its reasoned judgment. Furthermore , regard
must be had to the practical consideration of an appeal before another Court in
circumstances when both parties sought relief in terms of section 163 of the
Companies Act and no grounds of appeal are raised regarding the exercise of the
Court's discretion when crafting the section 163 relief. In fact, both Counsel in
argument submitted that the relief was appropriate and well crafted. Counsel for the
Trust in argument further suggested that the Trust may even adopt the same 163
relief, albeit with minor amendments.
[3] Flowing from this and, placing significance on the fact that this Court, when
determining and crafting the section 163 relief, considered all the facts before it and,
of course put due weight on the findings it made in respect of the respondents'
reliance on section 163(1) in order to strike an equitable balance. This balance it
found notwithstanding the fact that the Trust's counter claim failed. It is however the
Court's findings regarding section 163(1) which appears to make up the thrust of the
Trust's grounds in support of leave.
4
[4] Speaking to these grounds, this Court has reconsidered the reasoned
judgment , considered the submissions, considered that the Trust failed to attack the
principle adopted by the Court in the De Klerk v Ferreira and Others1 regarding the
interpretation of a company's policy, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal would
not have a reasonable prospect of success and that there is no other compelling
reason why the appeal should be heard.
[5) In the circumstances, the Trust has failed to meet the threshold of section
17(1 )(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 and the application should
fail.
[6] The following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. The Applicant is to pay the First and Second Respondents ' costs and
Counsel's fees , taxed on scale C.
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
For the First Respondent
2017 (3) SA 502 (GP).
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division
Adv Stefan Maritz SC
Cell: 082 333 8521
Email : stefan@cl ubadvocates .co.za
Adv H F Oosthuizen SC
Cell: 082 568 5665
Email: htoosthuizen@brooklynadvocates.co.za
For the Second Respondent Adv HF Oosthuizen SC
Cell: 082 568 5665
Email: hfoosth u izen@brooklynadvocates.co .za
Date of hearing: 05 February 2026
Date of judgment: 23 February 2026
5