Botha v 4D Health (Pty) Ltd (18976/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 815 (19 August 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 815
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- E van der Schyff
- Case number
- 18976/2019
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- E van der Schyff
- Case number
- 18976/2019
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds for appeal, the judge was not persuaded that there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion. 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
Johanna Magrieta Susanna Botha
Applicant Counsel: Adv. JA Klopper4D Health (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv. NC Maritz03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 26 April 2024.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has met the jurisdictional requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 02
Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the judgment delivered on 26 April 2024 was incorrect and that there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Grounds for appeal were submitted, focusing on alleged errors in the factual and legal findings of the court.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the application for leave to appeal does not meet the requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The respondent maintained that the judgment was correct and that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, section 17(1)
Leave to appeal may only be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds for appeal, the judge was not persuaded that there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The judgment and order were delivered electronically and as a courtesy, emailed to the parties and their legal representatives.
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
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 18976/2019
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
Date: 19 August 2024
E van der Schyff
In the matter between:
JOHANNA
MAGRIETA SUSANNA BOTHA
APPLICANT
And
4D HEALTH (PTY) LTD
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment and order handed down in this matter on 26 April 2024.
[2] I handed down a comprehensive judgment containing the reasons for the order. It is thus not necessary to revisit the reasons. I have considered the grounds on which the applicant approached the court for leave to appeal. I am not of the opinion that the jurisdictional requirements to grant leave to appeal as stipulated in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, are met. 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 judgement 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 applicant: Adv. JA Klopper Instructed by: Cavanagh & Richards Attorneys For the respondent: Adv. NC Maritz Instructed by: Van der Merwe & Bester Inc. Date of the hearing: 2 August 2024 Date of judgment: 19 August 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.