Bekker v Pride Milling Company (51140/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1046 (9 December 2019)

Bekker v Pride Milling Company (51140/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1046 (9 December 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judgment addressed all grounds raised by the applicant, and there was no sound rational basis for concluding that another court would reach a different result. The requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were not met, as the matter did not present substantial importance nor a practical effect that could be achieved by the appeal. The costs order was justified given the circumstances and the outcome of the main and counter-application.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1046
Parties
Applicant: M J Bekker; Respondent: Pride Milling Company
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2019
Case Number
51140/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Main and Counter Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Strijdom
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Prospects of Success, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Prospects of Success Superior Courts Act

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

M J Bekker

Applicant

Pride Milling Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Main and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment dismissing his counter-application and granting the respondent's application.
  2. 2 Whether the amount in dispute is substantial and whether a practical effect or result can be achieved by the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the applicant was correctly made.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judgment addressed all grounds raised by the applicant, and there was no sound rational basis for concluding that another court would reach a different result. The requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were not met, as the matter did not present substantial importance nor a practical effect that could be achieved by the appeal. The costs order was justified given the circumstances and the outcome of the main and counter-application.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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