Brilliant Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd and Others (042792/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 713 (14 July 2025)
The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the submissions of both parties. Applying section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the judge found that the applicant had not demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal, nor had any compelling reason been shown for the appeal to be heard. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 713
- Parties
- Applicant: Brilliant Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: CBX Tech (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 042792/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 7 April 2025.
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the applicant.
- Judges
- Lenyai
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brilliant Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
CBX Tech (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 7 April 2025.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 2 Whether there is any compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the submissions of both parties. Applying section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the judge found that the applicant had not demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal, nor had any compelling reason been shown for the appeal to be heard. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there were conflicting judgments on the matter. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the applicant.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent on scale C.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF3SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 042792/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE 14/07/2025
LENYAI J
In the matter of:
BRILLIANT TELECOMMUNICATIONS (PTY) LTD Applicant
And
ALTRON TMT (PTY) LTD
First
Respondent
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Second Respondent
CBX TECH (PTY) LTD
Third Respondent
The judgment and order are published and distributed electronically. The date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 14 July 2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the applicant against the judgment and order granted by me on the 7th April 2025.
2. The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 as follows:
“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.”
3. I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought and the reasons given by me for the judgment and the order. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the applicant and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the first respondent.
4. I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.
5. In the circumstances, I make the following order:
5.1 The application for leave to appeal is refused.
5.2 The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent on scale C.
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant:
: Adv Ralikhuvhana Instructed by
: Katlego Ralikhuvhana Mokgola Inc Counsel for the First Respondent
: Adv Prinsloo Instructed by
: Lowndes Dlamini Incorporated Date of hearing
: 11 JULY 2025 Date of Judgement
: 14 JULY 2025