1	
  	
T	
  	
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY
Case No: 1603/2015
Heard on:         28/11/2016 
Delivered on: 13/01/2017
In the matter between:
HENRY JOHAN NES KNOETZE                                                                                                                                                     APPLICANT
And
HENRY CASPARUS KNOETZE N.O.                                                                                                           1st RESPONDENT 
HEN RY CASPARUS KNOETZE                                                                                                                        2nd RESPONDENT 
MAGDALENA   ELIZABETH   KNOETZE N.O.                                                                             3rd RESPONDENT
MAG DALENA ELIZABETH KNOETZE                                                                                              4th RESPONDENT
HENDRICK CORNELIUS LE ROUX N.O                                                                                        5th RESPONDENT
HENDRICK CORNELI U S LE ROUX                                                                                                     6th RESPONDENT
ESTELLE   ELIZABETH   SWART                                                                                                                    7th RESONDENT
MARTHA MAGDALENA     KNOETZE                                                                                                      8th RESPONDENT
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY                                                                        9th RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL 
MAMOSEBO J
[1] The applicant, Henry Johannes Knoetze, seeks leave to appeal to the Fu ll Bench of the Northern Cape Division alternatively to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole of my judgment and order granted on   24 June 2016 in which the following orders were made:
1.1 The exception relating to the plaintiff s first claim is upheld and the claim is dismissed;
1.2 The exception in relation to the plaintiff's second claim (consisting of exception 2 and 3) is upheld;
1.3 The plaintiff is afforded the oppo1tunity to amend his Particulars of Claim (the second claim), i f so advised, within 20 days of this order, failing which the defendant i s granted leave to apply on the same papers, suitably supplemented, for dismissal of the action; and
1 .4 The plaintiff pay the costs of the exception application which includes the costs associated with the submission of the supplementary note.
[2] The grounds upon which   the   applicant   relies   comprise   about   12   pages. The applicant has also listed 14 findings I made which he alleges I erred and submitted that there are therefore reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Listing and dealing with all of them will render this judgment unnecessarily prolix.   See Songono v Minister of Law   and Order   1996 (4) SA 384 (E) at 385C - E.
[3] The issues in the main case were really three exceptions raised by the first to sixth respondents. I found that the allocation ("toekenning") of the farm to the applicant fell under   the Alienation of Land Act, 68 of 1981 and accordingly upheld the exception and dismissed the plaintiff's (applicant's) claim. This finding is final and dispositive in effect. It is my view that there are nevertheless no reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the finding.
[4] In the second exception I found that the applicant lacked the necessary locus standi in judicio to act for and on behalf of the trust. Adv Van der Walt SC, appearing for the applicant, submitted that 'an amendment will serve no purpose as Mamosebo J has already determined the position '. This submission is, in my view, without merit. It will assist the applicant to amend its pleadings before proceeding with the main action, if so advised. The applicant has been afforded an opportunity to amend its pleadings which renders the matter not final in effect and hence not appealable. See Zweni v Minister of Law and Order 1993 (l) SA 523 (A) at 5321 and 536B-D.
[5] I therefore find that the applicant has no basis to seek the relief sought as there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. See s 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013.
[6] In the result the following order is made:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
______________________
MAMOSEBO J
NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT

For the applicant:                                                      Adv D. J . Van der Walt SC
Instructed by:                                                                   Duncan & Rothman Inc

For the 1st - 5th respondents:                 Adv S.C. Kirk-Cohen SC
Instructed by:                                                                     Haarhoffs Inc.
  
For the 6th respondent:                                       Adv S. Grabler
Instructed by:                                                                     Haarhoffs Inc