Cassim NO and Another v Quickstep 684 (Pty) Limited (89103/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 625 (16 September 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZAGPPHC 625
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Haupt
- Case number
- 89103/2019
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Haupt
- Case number
- 89103/2019
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 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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Z Cassim N.O.
Applicant Counsel: Mr RaubenheimerAnother
Applicant Counsel: Mr RaubenheimerQuickstep 684 (Pty) Limited
Respondent Counsel: Mr van Rooyen03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Opposed Liquidation Motion
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the liquidation order.
- 02
Whether the order appealed from is final and thus appealable.
- 03
Whether the applicants have locus standi to pursue the appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success and that there are compelling reasons for the matter to be heard by a full Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal. They rely on the grounds previously set out in their notice for leave to appeal, which mirror arguments already considered in the initial judgment. They argue that the threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act is met.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by Mr van Rooyen, raises a point in limine, arguing that the order sought to be appealed is not final in effect and therefore not appealable. The respondent maintains that the applicants lack locus standi and that the prior judgment is clear and conclusive on these issues.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act
The threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act requires a measure of certainty that another court would come to a different conclusion.
- 02
Pretoria Garrison Institutes v Danish Variety Products (Pty) Ltd 1948 (1) SA 839 (A)
An order is appealable if it is final in effect and disposes of the substantive rights of the parties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The raising of the threshold for leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act reflects the legislature's intention to limit appeals to cases with genuine prospects of success.
- The lack of locus standi is dispositive for the applicants and precludes further consideration of the merits.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.
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
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION HELD AT PRETORIA
CASE NO: 89103/2019
DATE: 2021.06.28
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In the matter between
Z CASSIM N.O. AND ANOTHER
and
QUICKSTEP 684 (PTY) LIMITED
JUDGMENT
EXTEMPORE
HAUPT, AJ: In the leave to appeal of Cassim nomine officio and another versus Quickstep 684 (Pty) Limited, case number 89103/2019 I give the following extempore judgment:
The application for leave pertains to an opposed motion application for the liquidation of Quickstep 684 (Pty) Limited under case number 89103/2019.
I do not intend dealing with the factual matrix and the chronology of the litigation that ensued prior and after the sequestration of Jacqueline Howard who during 2007 obtained shares in Quickstep from the founder and the then director of both Quickstep and Leboa Investments 22 (Pty) Limited.
Both applications for liquidations against Quickstep and Leboa, Leboa being under case number 89101/2019, were issued on the same day by the applicants and argued together before me. I further do not intend summarising the grounds for leave to appeal served on 7 January 2021, as it the notice for leave to appeal sets out the same arguments, in essence, as already considered by me in the judgment granted on 18 December 2020.
The application for leave to appeal is sought in terms of the provisions of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant contends that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success and there is compelling reason why the appeal should be heard by a full Court, alternatively the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The threshold for the granting of leave to appeal has been raised. The authorities regarding the use of the word "would" in the new act is indicative of the measure of certainty that another Court will differ from the Court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against and this does not need any further discussion.
In determining whether there is a reasonable prospect of success that another Court would grant a different order I considered the judgment of 18 December 2020, the order granted, the liquidation application, the heads of argument filed by both Mr Raubenheimer, on behalf of the applicants, and Mr van Rooyen during July 2020 and the subsequent heads that were filed by both counsel who appeared before me this morning, as well as the grounds set out in the notice for leave to appeal.
Mr van Rooyen this morning indicated that the respondents are raising a point in limine. I am not agreement with the point in limine raised by Mr van Rooyen on behalf of the respondents that the order is not appealable as it is not final in its effect. In my view the order is clear in this regard, particularly at prayer 2 and 3 thereof, and the lack of locus standi is the end of the matter for the applicants.
However, nothing turns, in my view, at this stage on the point in limine as I am not persuaded with a measure of certainty that another Court will differ from the judgment dated 18 December 2020. Consequently I am not persuaded that the appeal will have a reasonable prospect of success. In the result the following order is made:
ORDER
The leave to appeal is refused with costs.
HAUPT,
AJ
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE: 16/9/2021
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.