Cassim NO and Another v Quickstep 684 (Pty) Limited (89103/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 625 (16 September 2021)

Cassim NO and Another v Quickstep 684 (Pty) Limited (89103/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 625 (16 September 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The arguments advanced in the notice for leave to appeal were substantially the same as those already considered and rejected in the initial judgment. The point in limine raised by the respondent regarding the non-finality of the order was dismissed, as the court held that the order was indeed final, particularly in relation to locus standi. The court was not persuaded with the requisite measure of certainty that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 625
Parties
Applicant: Z Cassim N.O.; Applicant: Another; Respondent: Quickstep 684 (Pty) Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2021
Case Number
89103/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Opposed Liquidation Motion
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Judges
Haupt
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Standard, Company Liquidation, Locus Standi, Finality of Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Standard Company Liquidation Locus Standi Finality of Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z Cassim N.O.

Applicant

Another

Applicant

Quickstep 684 (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Opposed Liquidation Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the liquidation order.
  2. 2 Whether the order appealed from is final and thus appealable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have locus standi to pursue the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The arguments advanced in the notice for leave to appeal were substantially the same as those already considered and rejected in the initial judgment. The point in limine raised by the respondent regarding the non-finality of the order was dismissed, as the court held that the order was indeed final, particularly in relation to locus standi. The court was not persuaded with the requisite measure of certainty that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused with costs.

Orders

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