Ackerman v Ventures (2022/050857) [2025] ZAGPJHC 659 (30 June 2025)

Ackerman v Ventures (2022/050857) [2025] ZAGPJHC 659 (30 June 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for leave to appeal. The grounds raised merely repeated arguments previously dismissed, and the judgment had already addressed these submissions in detail. The applicant did not show that another court would reach a different decision. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused. On costs, the court held that while the application was meritless and arguably an abuse of process, it did not warrant punitive costs; costs on Scale C were deemed appropriate.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 659
Parties
Applicant: Willem Hendrik Ackerman; Respondent: Kalon Ventures
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2025
Case Number
2022/050857
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Liquidation Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Dlamini
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Award, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs Award Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Hendrik Ackerman

Applicant

Kalon Ventures

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Liquidation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons or extraordinary circumstances justifying the grant of leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on a punitive scale due to alleged abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for leave to appeal. The grounds raised merely repeated arguments previously dismissed, and the judgment had already addressed these submissions in detail. The applicant did not show that another court would reach a different decision. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused. On costs, the court held that while the application was meritless and arguably an abuse of process, it did not warrant punitive costs; costs on Scale C were deemed appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.