IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1) REPORTABLE : NO
(3) REVISED: YES
In the matter between:
TSHEPO MAT JEE
BATSILE BOTLHE PROJECCT DEVELOPMENT
(PTY) LTD
BAKGATLA AND SONS HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
and
MALEBANA OBAKENG KEABETSWE MOLLY
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
MALEBANA LETHLOGONOLO MOLOKOTO
PETER
MAT JEE TSHEPO JOHANNES
MASONGANYE SELIAAN SARAH
BOKANG MORENA TRADING ANO PROJECTS
(PTY) LTD
CASE NO: 045858/2024
151 APLLICANT
2nd APPLICANT
3rd APPLICANT
1st RESPONDENT
2nd RESPONDENT
3rd RESPONDENT
4th RESPONDENT
5th RESPONDENT
6th RESPONDENT
2
MALEBANA KGABO LEBESIA N.O. 7th RESPONDENT
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
ALLY AJ
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal the whole my judgment and order of
21 January 2026.
[2] The applicants on this occasion were represented by Adv. M.B. Lekoloana
and the first respondent still by Mr S. Twala.
[3] Whilst the applicants had filed the application for leave to appeal on 22
January 2026, a supplementary notice for leave to appeal was filed two days before
the hearing of the application for leave to appeal. There was no objection to the
supplementary notice of leave to appeal and this Court heard the application for
leave to appeal based on the supplementary notice and the grounds set out therein.
[4] At the outset a ruling was made that the first respondent's points in limine will
be dealt with after hearing all submissions from the parties.
[5] Counsel for the applicant in dealing with his submissions wanted to address
the Court on first respondent's point that the application for leave to appeal had
lapsed and I ruled that this issue need not be dealt with at that stage but later after
the first respondent's legal representative had expanded and explained the point. It
can be stated that the point of the application for leave to appeal lapsing was.
abandoned by the first respondent and rightly so.
3
[6] It has now become trite that the test in applications for leave to appeal has
changed to one which is heightened1. The Respondent is accordingly required to
convince this Court that another Court 'would' come to another conclusion.
[7] I do not deem it necessary to repeat the grounds of appeal in this judgement
save to state that I have considered all the grounds as well as the submissions of
both parties in this application.
[8] I remain unconvinced that another court would come to a different conclusion
and accordingly I am of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success
and there are no compelling reasons to grant this application for leave to appeal.
[9] With regard to the judgment by Mazibuko J which the applicants rely on as a
factor which this Court must have regard to in adjudicating this application, suffice it
to state that Mazibuko J was dealing with an application in terms of Section 18 and
in my view did not overturn my judgment which in law could not be overturned
except through rescission proceedings or an appeal.
[1 OJ Accordingly, the application must fail and costs must follow the result. The
first respondent requested on what was submitted, a higher scale for the reason
that the applicants filed the supplementary application for leave to appeal on the
eve of the hearing. As stated above, the first respondent did not object to the filing
1 The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen 3 November 2014 (unreported judgement LCC Case No:
LCC14R/2014; The Acting National Director of Public Prosecution v Democratic Alliance (unreported
case no: 19577/09 dated 24 June 2016); First Reality (Pty) Ltd v Mitchell & Others 2021 ZALCC 21
dated 23 August 2021 @ para 2
4
of the supplementary application for leave to appeal and it is my view that there is
no need to penalise the applicants.
[11) Accordingly, the following Order will issue:
a). the application for leave to appeal is dismissed;
b). the costs of this application are to be paid by the applicants, the one
paying the others to be absolved and the scale in terms of Rule 67 A is set at
-----
Scale B.
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Electronically submitted therefore unsigned
Delivered: This judgement was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name
is reflected and is handed down electronica lly 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 hand-down is deemed to be 4 June 2026
Date of virtual hearing: 20 May 2026
Date of judgment: 4 June 2026
Appearances:
Attorneys for the Applicants:
Counsel for the Applicants:
SIMELANE ATTORNEYS INC
psimelane@psa-law.co.za
Adv. M.B. Lekoloana
Attorneys for the 1st Respondent:
Counsel for the 1st Respondent:
5
S. TWALA ATTORNEYS INC
sifiso@stwala .co.za
Mr S. Twala [with right of appearance]