---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

CASE NUMBER: 11132/2009, 22736/2009, 10336/2010

DATE: 15 OCTOBER 2010

In the matter between:

BRYAN NEVILLE SHAW N.O. …...................................................1^st Applicant

DUDLEY BERNARD DAVIDS N.O. …...........................................2^nd Applicant

CHRISTOPHER PETER VAN ZYL N.O. …....................................3^rd Applicant

BRIAN NEVILLE SHAW N.O. …....................................................4^th Applicant

HASSEN KAJIE N.O. ….................................................................5^th Applicant

and

PATRICK KERRY O'SHEA N.O. …...........................................1^st Respondent

SIOBHAN LEE O'SHEA N.O. …...............................................2^nd Respondent

JUDGMENT

Application for Leave to Appeal

JACOBS. AJ:

The third intervening applicant, was granted leave to intervene as an applicant in the sequestration application under case number 11132/2009.

1. The provisional order for sequestration granted on 11 November 2009 was made final.

2. The third intervening applicant, was granted leave to intervene as an applicant in the sequestration application under case number 11132/2009.

3. The application costs and the costs of the third intervening applicant are ordered to be costs in the sequestration.

Mr Sholto-Douqlas SC. who appeared on behalf of the respondent, the applicant in the present application for leave to appeal, raised various arguments in addition to the grounds raised in the application for leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was opposed by Mr Manca SC and Mr Sievers, acting on behalf of the applicants and the third intervening applicant respectively.

I am of the view, having had the benefit of argument from counsel, that the present matter involves, on the crucial issues which underpin the matter, matters of interpretation and that another Court might come to a different conclusion on those issues. In this regard the maxim tot homines tot sententiae is apposite and one should certainly not be dogmatic about

In the application for leave to appeal dated 9 September 2010 and filed on 10 September 2010, reference was also made to grounds of appeal in paragraph (b)(i) and (b)(ii) relating to the first and second applications to intervene. At the hearing of this matter and during argument relating to the application for leave to appeal, Mr Sholto-Douqlas SC indicated that as he was not involved in the matter previously and was simply briefed to argue the application for leave to appeal, that he was not aware that the first and second application for leave to intervene, was neither argued nor was any relief sought at the previous hearing and that his client no longer relies on the grounds of appeal set forth in paragraph (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of the application for leave to appeal.

In the circumstances, I am of the view that leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal in view of the legal issues raised in the matter and that the costs should be costs in the appeal. Accordingly the following order is granted:

1. That leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

2. That costs should be costs in the appeal.

JACOBS, AJ

---