REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(l) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
Date: 28 August 2026
In the matter between:
MR. SOLAR INSTALLATIONS (PTY) LTD
and
VORSTER$ BRANDT ATTORNEYS
CLEAR CHOICE BUILDERS (PTY) LTD
(In liquidation)
TUMISANG REGINALD KGABOESELE N.O.
JUDGMENT :
Van der Schyff J
CASE NO.: 2026-099682
APPLICA NT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal the order granted on 19 May 2026, read
together with the written reasons furnished on 2 June 2026.
2
[2] On 19 May 2026, the application was struck from the urgent Insolvency Court roll,
and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney
and-own-client scale.
[3] This application for leave to appeal is directed at both the decision to strike the
matter from the roll and the subsequent punitive costs order.
[4] The applicant submits that another court would have stayed the proceedings or
postponed the application sine die, rather than striking it from the roll. The applicant
takes umbrage at the punitive costs order.
[5] Section 17(1 )(a) of the Superior Courts Act 1 O of 2013 dictates that leave to appeal
may only be granted where the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have a
reasonable prospect of success, or where there is some other compelling reason
why the appeal should be heard.
[6] I have considered the grounds of appeal and the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties. Having reconsidered the order and its underlying reasoning, in light of
the grounds advanced, I am not of the opinion that an appeal has a reasonable
prospect of success. Furthermore, no other compelling reason has been established
to justify the hearing of an appeal.
[7] That brings me to the appropriate costs order for this application for leave to appeal.
The first respondent again submitted that a punitive costs order is appropriate under
the circumstances.
[8] The striking of the matter from the roll does not have the effect of a final judgment
or order. It is therefore not appealable. Regard being had to the circumstances
preceding the order on 19 May 2026, the punitive costs order was justified. The
reasons for that order were provided, and the applicant's counsel correctly conceded
in her heads of argument:
The Applicant acknowledges, subject to the qualifications advanced above,
that its persistence with the urgent application may have warranted judicial
disapproval and an adverse costs order. The issue is whether that conduct
disapproval and an adverse costs order. The issue is whether that conduct
justified the exceptional attorney-and-own-client scale.'
[9] In circumstances where a respondent should not be left out of pocket, and where a
court deems it necessary to mark its disapproval of a particular party's conduct, it
may exercise its discretion to grant costs on an attorney-and-own-client scale.
2
3
[10] However, a court should be slow to dissuade litigants from pursuing applications for
leave to appeal by penalizing them with punitive costs, except in exceptional cases
where the facts and the conduct preceding the application for leave to appeal justify
such an order. Although the threshold for exceptional circumstances was met when
the initial order was granted on 19 May 2026, I am of the view that regarding th is
application for leave to appeal , costs on scale B should follow the result.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on scale B.
Evan der
Judge of the High Court
Delivere.d: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of
this matter on Caselines. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the date the judgment
is signed and the date it is uploaded to Caselines, the date the judgment is uploaded to
Caselines is deemed to be the date that the judgment is handed down.
For the applicant:
Instructed by:
For the first respondent:
Instructed by:
Date of the hearing:
Date of judgment:
3
Adv. N Njeza
G & T ATTORNEYS
Adv. EJJ Nel
VORSTER & BRANDT ATTORNEYS
25 August 2026
28 August 2026