Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd v Natanz Steel Melting PLS (Private Joint Stock) and Others (Leave to Appeal) (032659/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1333 (12 December 2024)
The court found that the issues raised by the applicant do not warrant a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The court is satisfied that its judgment is clear and correct and that no further clarification is required. Accordingly, the application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1333
- Parties
- Applicant: Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd; Respondent: Natanz Steel Melting PLS (Private Joint Stock); Respondent: Allen Targhi Tavakoli; Respondent: DLX Properties (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 032659/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
- Judges
- Holland-Muter
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd
Applicant
Natanz Steel Melting PLS (Private Joint Stock)
Respondent
Allen Targhi Tavakoli
Respondent
DLX Properties (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Court Act.
- 2 Whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
- 3 Whether there is any other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised by the applicant do not warrant a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The court is satisfied that its judgment is clear and correct and that no further clarification is required. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused with costs on Scale C as provided for in section 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused.
- Costs are awarded against the applicant on Scale C as contained in section 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 032659/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: yes
DATE 12 December 2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
ARCELORMITTAL SOUTH AFRICA LTD
Applicant
and
NATANZ STEEL MELTING PLS (PRIVATE JOINT STOCK) 1st Respondent
ALLEN TARGHI TAVAKOLI
2nd Respondent
DLX PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD
3rd Respondent
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
(The matter was heard in open court and judgment was reserved. Having considered the application, judgment was handed down by uploading the judgment onto the electronic file of the matter onto CaseLines and the date of the Judgment is deemed to be the date of the uploading of the judgment onto CaseLines)
BEFORE: HOLLAND-MUTER J
[1] The court has heard counsel for the parties and read the heads of arguments uploaded onto CaseLines.
[2] The Court, when considering whether leave to appeal be granted, has to apply the provisions of section 17(1)(a) (i) & (ii) of the Superior Court Act, 10 of 2013, and may only grant leave to appeal where the judge concerned is of the opinion that (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success , or (ii) where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
[3] Having heard counsel for the applicant and the 1st respondent, the court is of the opinion that the issued argued does not warrant a reasonable prospect of success nor is there some other reason why the appeal should be heard.
[4] The court has nothing further to add to the delivered judgment as clarified in the follow-up clarification of the judgment.
[5] The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs, costs to be on Scale C as contained in section 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
Signed at Pretoria on 12 December 2024.
HOLLAND-MUTER J
JUDGE OF THE PRETORIA HIGH COURT
The matter was heard on 11 December 2024 and judgment was handed down and uploaded onto CaseLines on 12 December 2024.
Appearances:
On behalf of the Applicant: Adv A C BOTHA SC On behalf of the 1st Respondent: Adv A C MARITZ