Biccard N.O and Others v Ndwandwe and Others (2023-033422) [2024] ZAGPPHC 973 (30 September 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 973
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- E van der Schyff
- Case number
- 2023-033422
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- E van der Schyff
- Case number
- 2023-033422
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The grounds advanced were adequately addressed in the original judgment, and no new facts or legal arguments were presented that would justify reconsideration by another court. The allegation of judicial bias was unsupported by any evidence beyond the applicants' dissatisfaction with the outcome. 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, costs of counsel on scale B.
02
Material facts
Parties
Bianca Tiana Biccard N.O.
Applicant Counsel: J.L. KaplanAtholl David Victor Liebman N.O.
Applicant Counsel: J.L. KaplanJaqueline June Liebman Gentile N.O.
Applicant Counsel: J.L. KaplanJohannes Oupa Ndwandwe
Respondent Counsel: E.R. VenterThemba Hendry Mkhbela
Respondent Counsel: E.R. VenterBradley Brett Liebman N.O.
RespondentAndrea Liebman N.O.
RespondentJonathan Hugh Stephens
RespondentAngelene Poole N.O.
RespondentJanetta Evelyn Carr N.O.
RespondentPumezo David N.O.
RespondentMurray James Barnetson N.O.
RespondentKanabo Gugulethu Skhosana N.O.
RespondentThe Master of the High Court, Pretoria
RespondentThe Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
RespondentChristiana Biccard
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
- 02
Whether the grounds of appeal establish a reasonable prospect of success.
- 03
Whether allegations of judicial bias are substantiated.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants submitted multiple grounds of appeal, contending that the judgment of 19 August 2024 was incorrect on both factual and legal bases. They supplemented their application by alleging judicial bias on the part of the presiding judge. They argued that the appeal should be allowed to proceed to a higher court for reconsideration.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application for leave to appeal, asserting that the grounds advanced by the applicants were without merit and did not raise any reasonable prospect of success. They further argued that the allegations of bias were unfounded and that the judgment was properly reasoned. The respondents sought dismissal of the application with costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal will only be granted where there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others 1999 (4) SA 147 (CC)
Allegations of judicial bias must be substantiated by clear evidence and not mere dissatisfaction with the outcome.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The grounds advanced were adequately addressed in the original judgment, and no new facts or legal arguments were presented that would justify reconsideration by another court. The allegation of judicial bias was unsupported by any evidence beyond the applicants' dissatisfaction with the outcome. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The court reiterates that mere disagreement with a judgment does not constitute grounds for alleging judicial bias.
- Costs on scale B are warranted given the nature of the application and the conduct of the parties.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, costs of counsel on scale B.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Ruling
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 2023-033422
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
Date:30 September 2024
E van der Schyff
In the matter between:
BIANCA
TIANA BICCARD N.O.
FIRST APPLICANT
ATHOLL DAVID VICTOR LIEBMAN N.O.
SECOND APPLICANT
JAQUELINE JUNE LIEBMAN GENTILE N.O.
THIRD APPLICANT
and
JOHANNES
OUPA NDWANDWE
FIRST RESPONDENT
THEMBA
HENDRY MKHBELA
SECOND RESPONDENT
BRADLEY BRETT LIEBMAN N.O.
THIRD RESPONDENT
ANDREA LIEBMAN N.O.
FOURTH RESPONDENT
JONATHAN
HUGH STEPHENS
FIFTH RESPONDENT
ANGELENE POOLE N.O.
SIXTH RESPONDENT
JANETTA EVELYN CARR N.O.
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
PUMEZO DAVID N.O.
EIGHTH RESPONDENT
MURRAY JAMES BARNETSON N.O.
NINTH RESPONDENT
KANABO GUGULETHU SKHOSANA N.O.
TENTH RESPONDENT
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT,
PRETORIA
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
THE
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
COMMISSION
TWELFTH RESPONDENT
CHRISTIANA
BICCARD
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J
[1] I handed down a written judgment in this matter on 19 August 2024. The applicants filed an application for leave to appeal, which was heard on 16 September 2024.
[2] The applicants raised numerous grounds of appeal. They supplemented their grounds by filing a notice expressing that I was biased against them.
[3] After considering the papers filed in the application, the judgment, and the grounds of appeal, I am of the opinion that the appeal does not have a reasonable prospect of success. The written judgment contains the reasons for the order handed down on 19 August 2024, and I need not elaborate on this.
[4] The application for leave to appeal stands to be dismissed.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, costs of counsel on scale B.
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. As a courtesy gesture, it will be emailed to the parties/their legal representatives.
For the applicants: J.L. Kaplan With: E. Dreyer Instructed by: Aaron Stanger & Associates For the first and second respondents: E.R. Venter Instructed by: JHS Attorneys Date of the hearing: 16 September 2024 Date of judgment: 30 September 2024
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.