---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

COMMERCIAL COURT

(1)    NOT REPORTABLE

(2)    NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES 

25 June 2020 

                                                                                                             CASE NO: 48438/2011

 

In the matter between: 

SHENAAZ VE DE VILLIERS                                             Applicant/ Plaintiff

 and

 ZAAIBOONISHA JONES                                                  First Respondent/ First Defendant

REGISTRAR OF DEEDS                                                    Second Respondent/ Second Defendant

 

JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

 

MODIBA J: 

[1]  The applicant, who was the plaintiff in the action (De Villiers), has applied for leave to appeal the judgment and order that I handed down on 18 May 2020. The First Respondent, who was the First Defendant in the action (Jones), is the only respondent opposing the application.

 

[2]  De Villiers relies on section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. It provides:

“(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;”

 

[3]  It has become trite that this provision only allows leave to appeal to be granted where the applicant establishes that another court would arrive at different findings and order from that rendered in the judgment appealed against.[1]

 

[4]  De Villiers has set out her grounds of appeal in detail. Jones contends that there are no prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion on these issues.

 

[5]  I have considered the grounds for appeal as set out in De Villiers’ notice of appeal as well as submissions by counsel for the parties. I stand by my reasons for judgment as set out in the judgment handed down in this matter. 

 

[6]  I find that De Villiers fails to meet the threshold referred to above.

 

[7]  In the premises, the following order is made:

 

ORDER

 

1.   The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, which costs shall include the costs of two counsel where so employed.

 

MS L T MODIBA

                                             JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

APPEARANCES:

Counsel for the Plaintiff:                        Advocate P Springveldt

Instructed by:                                          G.W. Mashele Attorneys

Counsel for the First Defendant:           Advocate EL Theron SC

                                                                  Advocate T Steyn

Instructed by:                                          Klopper Jonker Inc. 

Date of Judgment:                                  25 June 2020 

 

 

---