Bentel Associates International (Pty) Ltd v Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Ltd and Another (2482/2009) [2015] ZAFSHC 9 (5 February 2015)
The court found that, given the importance and substantial nature of the matter, there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion. Both parties agreed to withdraw the Rule 42 notice and incorporate it into the amended application for leave to cross-appeal. Accordingly, leave to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZAFSHC 9
- Parties
- Applicant: Bentel Associates International (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Trustees of the N Georgiou Trust
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2482/2009
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted for both the appeal and the amended cross-appeal. Costs of these applications are costs in the appeals.
- Judges
- Kruger
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Rule 42 Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bentel Associates International (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Trustees of the N Georgiou Trust
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal for both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
- 2 Whether the Rule 42 application should be withdrawn and incorporated into the amended application for leave to cross-appeal.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, given the importance and substantial nature of the matter, there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion. Both parties agreed to withdraw the Rule 42 notice and incorporate it into the amended application for leave to cross-appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted for both the appeal and the amended cross-appeal. The costs of these applications are to be costs in the appeals.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted for both the appeal and the amended cross-appeal. Costs of these applications are costs in the appeals.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted in respect of the appeal and the amended cross-appeal.
- Costs of these applications are in the appeals.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case No: 2482/2009
In the applications for leave to appeal between:-
BENTEL ASSOCIATES
INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD ….....................................................Plaintiff/Applicant/Respondent
and
LOCH LOGAN
WATERFRONT (PTY) LTD …..................................................1st Defendant/Respondent/Applicant
TRUSTEES OF THE
N GEORGIOU TRUST ….......................................................2nd Defendant/Respondent/Applicant
CORAM: KRUGER, J
JUDGEMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL
DELIVERED ON: 5 FEBRUARY 2015
[1] In view of the importance of this matter and its substantial nature, leave to appeal should in my view be granted in respect of the Appeal and Cross-Appeal. There are reasonable prospects that another court can come to different conclusions.
[2] The plaintiff filed an application under Rule 42. I discussed the matter with the attorneys for both parties in chambers on two occasions, and it was agreed that the Rule 42 notice be withdrawn and incorporated in the amended application for leave to cross-appeal.
[3] ORDER
1. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted in respect of the appeal and the amended cross-appeal.
2. Costs of these applications are in the appeals.
_______________
A. KRUGER, J
On behalf of plaintiff: Mr D. Honiball
Instructed by:
Matsepes Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of defendants: Mr R. Oosthuizen
Instructed by:
E.G. Cooper Majiedt Inc.