Bekker v Pride Milling Company (51140/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 71 (3 March 2020)

Bekker v Pride Milling Company (51140/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 71 (3 March 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds advanced did not demonstrate that another court would likely reach a different conclusion. The judgment had already dealt extensively with the facts and law, and the applicant's contentions were not persuasive. The requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were not met, as the matter lacked substantial importance and no practical effect would result from the appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 71
Parties
Applicant: M J Bekker; Respondent: Pride Milling Company
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2020
Case Number
51140/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court Following Judgment on 4 November 2019.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Strijdom
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Reasonable 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 4 Authorities cited 4 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 to the Full Court Following Judgment on 4 November 2019.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment of 4 November 2019.
  2. 2 Whether the amount in dispute is substantial and whether a practical effect can be achieved by the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the applicant was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds advanced did not demonstrate that another court would likely reach a different conclusion. The judgment had already dealt extensively with the facts and law, and the applicant's contentions were not persuasive. The requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were not met, as the matter lacked substantial importance and no practical effect would result from the appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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