About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 542
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Saaiman v Kirsten (Leave to Appeal) (13990/15) [2026] ZAGPPHC 542 (27 May 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 13990/15
HEARD
ON: 26 May 2026
JUDGMENT: 27 May 2026
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2) OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/ NO
(3)
REVISED
DATE : 27 May
2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter of:
GERT SAAIMAN
APPELLANT (DEFENDANT
A QUO
)
AND
IZAK KIRSTEN
RESPONDENT (PLAINTIFF
A QUO
)
JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO
APPEAL
Strijdom,
J
1.
In this matter the applicant
applies for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Appeal, alternatively, to a full Court, of this
division, against the whole
of my judgment and order handed down on
22 April 2026.
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.
4.
The test on
leave to appeal is not whether this court erred in its reasoning, but
whether an appeal court would come to a different
conclusion and
would thus give a different order.
[1]
Here again, the fundamental point of departure is that an appeal lies
against an order and not the reasons.
[2]
5.
To succeed in this application,
the applicant must convince the Court
that the requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act;
Act 10 of 2013 ("
the Act") are satisfied. These
requirements are :
5.1.
First, there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal;
5.2
Secondly, there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should
be heard.
5.3
Thirdly, the appeal does not fall within the ambit of section
(16)(2)(a)-
section 17(1)(b); and
5.4
Fourthly, the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all
the issues in the case –
section 17(1)(c)
6.
An applicant for leave to appeal must convince the court that, on a
sound, rational basis,
its prospects of success on appeal are not
remote but have a reasonable and realistic chance of succeeding.
Equally, a mere
possibility of success on appeal is not enough.
[3]
7.
In respect of all 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.
It is trite that the powers of a court of appeal against factual
findings are limited. There
must be demonstrable and material
misdirection by the trial court before a court of appeal will
interfere.
[4]
9.
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.
10.
I am also of the view that there are no compelling reasons why the
appeal should be heard.
11.
In the result, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with
costs on party and party scale.
Costs are to be taxed in
accordance with Scale B.
Strijdom
JJ
Judge
of the High Court, South Africa
Gauteng
Division, Pretoria
Representatives:
For the applicant:
adv JC Kotze
Instructed by:
Kotze and Roux Inc
For the Respondent:
Adv. J Prinsloo
Instructed by:
PJ Strydom
attorneys
[1]
Four
Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC v Rattan NO
2019 (3) SA 451
at [34]
[2]
South
African Reserve Bank v Khumalo and Another
2010 (5) SA 449
(SCA) ([2011]) ALL SA 26;
[2010] ZA SCA 53
para 4
[3]
See
Kingfisher
Fuels CC v BP Southern Afrika (Pty) Ltd and Another
2025 JDR 1544 (GT) para 46 page 12
[4]
See
S
v Hadebe and Others
1997 (2) SACR, 641
(SCA) and SAHRC v Masuku
2022 (4) SA 1
(CC)