In the matter between:
INGEROP SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
and
BLOEM WATER
THE MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION
IN RE:
INGEROP SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
and
BLOEM WATER
THE MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION
Not reportable
Case no: 4343/2021
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
Neutral citation : lngerop South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Bloem Water and Another
(4343/2021) [2026] ZAFSHC 232 (8 April 2026)
Coram : VANZYL J
Heard : 20 June 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties' representatives by e-mail and released to SAFLII. The date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 11 h00 on 8 April 2026.
Summary: Leave to appeal - s 17(1 )(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of
2013 - reasonable prospect of success - !is pendens - review application -
acknowledgment of debt.
2
ORDER
1 Leave to appeal is granted to the applicant to appeal to the Full Court of this
Division, against the whole of the judgment and order issued under the
abovementioned case number.
2 The costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Van Zyl J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal.
[2] The applicant ('lngerop') previously approached Court by means of application
proceedings ('the main application') in which it sought relief that judgment be
granted against the first respondent ('Bloem Water') for payment in the amount of
R35 102 773.17 (including VAT), together with interest thereon and payment of the
costs of the application. In addition, to opposing the main application on its merits,
Bloem Water also raised a point in limine of /is pendens with reference to a review
application which Bloem Water instituted against lngerop.
[3] Bloem Water consequently requested an order that lngerop's main application
be stayed pending the final determination of the review application.
[4] I subsequently made the following order in the main application:
'1. The point in limine of /is pendens is upheld and the application is stayed pending the
final adjudication of the review application issued under case number 5403/2022.
2. The costs of the application stand over for later adjudication.'
[5] The present application is an application by lngerop for leave to appeal to the
Full Court of this Court against the whole of the judgment and order delivered and
issued in the main application.
3
Legal principles re leave to appeal
[6] Section 17(1)(aJ of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ('the Act'), determines
as follows:
'(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the
opinion that -
(a)(i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) if there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration . .. '(My emphasis.)
[7] In Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Democratic
Alliance In Re: Democratic Alliance v Acting National Director of Public
Prosecutions and Others [2016) ZAGPPHC 489 para 25, the court held that the Act
has raised the bar for granting leave to appeal and in this regard it referred to the
judgment of The Mont Chevaux Trust (IT2012/28) v Tina Goosen and 18 Others
2014 JDR 2325 (LCC), where the following was stated:
'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 Cronwright and 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.' (My emphasis.)
See also Rohde v S [2019] ZASCA 193; 2020 (1) SACR 329 (SCA) para 8 and Fair
Trade Independent Tobacco Association v President of the Republic of South Africa
and Another [2020) ZAGPPHC 311 para 4.
[8) In Municipality of Thabazimbi v Badenhorst [2024] ZAGPPHC 195 para 9, the
court also dealt with the more stringent test for an application for leave to appeal
and held, inter alia, as follows:
'[9] A possibility and discretion were therefore , in the words of the legislation and
consciously so, amended to a mandatory obligatory requirement that leave may not be
consciously so, amended to a mandatory obligatory requirement that leave may not be
granted if there is no reasonable prospect that the appeal will succeed. It must be a
reasonable prospect of success; not that another Court may hold another view.
Notice of application for leave to appeal
[9] The applicant's notice of application for leave to appeal sets out the grounds
upon which the application is based. I deem it apposite to repeat same herein:
4
'1.1 The Honourable Court erred in not having regard to the fact that these proceedings,
the Application seeking compliance with the acknowledgment of debt, were instituted well
before the review proceedings. Accordingly, there was at the time no suit that had started
before another Judge involving the same parties. The exception of /is pendens was in law
not available to the First Respondent;
1.2 The Honourable Court erred in holding that the dispute forming the subject matter of
this application is the same as the dispute forming the subject matter of the review
proceedings. In so doing the Court failed to have regard to the legal nature of the
acknowledgment of debt, being a new obligation that co-exists with the original obligation
under the agreement concluded between the parties;
1.3 The Honourable Court erred in not having sufficient regard to the fact that the issues
to be dealt with in the review proceedings are the alleged unlawful award of a contract,
whereas this application concerns itself with the failure by the First Respondent to comply
with the two acknowledgments of debt given by it;
1.4 The Honourable Court erred in equating the alleged fact that the review application
may impact on the relief sought in that application with the legal requirement for /is pendens,
the same parties, based on the same cause of action, in respect of the same subject matter.
The legal requirements for /is pendens are distinct and different to that relied upon by the
First Respondent in the present instance, and as set out in paragraph 91 and 92 of its
affidavit;
1.5 In upholding the exception of /is pendens, the Honourable Gourt failed to have due
regard to the fact that until set aside, on the assumption that the review may eventually
succeed, the award and extension of the contract concluded between the parties exist in
law and in fact. The acknowledgements of debt relied upon were provided while the contract
concluded between the parties exists in law and in fact.'
concluded between the parties exists in law and in fact.'
Consideration of the application for leave to appeal
[1 OJ I have duly considered the abovementioned grounds of the application for
leave to appeal, in conjunction with the oral arguments which were presented to me
on behalf of both parties and the submissions advanced in the heads of argument
filed on behalf of the respective parties.
[11] When so considered and when taking a dispassionate look at the facts and
the applicable law, I conclude that there is a reasonable prospect that another Court
would come to a different conclusion and that leave to appeal should therefore be
granted.
5
Costs
[12] There is no reason why the usual order pertaining to the costs of an application
for leave to appeal should not be issued in the present matter.
Order
[13] The following order is made:
1 Leave to appeal is granted to the applicant to appeal to the Full Court of this
Division. against the whole of the judgment and order issued under the
abovementioned case number.
2 The costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.
CVANZYL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
6
Appearances:
For the applicant: A J Troskie SC
Instructed by: Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein
For the first respondent: MC Makgato with V Qithi
Instructed by: Symington & De Kok Attorneys, Bloemfontein.