City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 307; 90433/2018 (10 May 2023)
The court found that, although it did not consider its judgment necessarily wrong, the subject matter of the case is sufficiently important to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judge determined that compelling reasons exist for granting leave to appeal, as the issues raised may benefit from...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPPHC 307
- Parties
- Applicant: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin; Respondent: Pieter Nicolaas Grobler; Respondent: Anna Ellissabeth Grobler; Respondent: Ethel Margaret Coetzee; Respondent: Martha Margaretha du Plessis; Respondent: Johannes Jacobus Lombard; Respondent: Reseane Kaizer Humphry Makole; Respondent: Yvonne Good; Respondent: Lynn East Prop (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Diana Edit Georgiades; Respondent: Fredierik Jackobus van der Sande; Respondent: Jeanne Louise van der Sande; Respondent: Edmour Marchand; Respondent: Nadia Marchand; Respondent: Marc Richard Truman N.O.; Respondent: Gregory John Bouwer; Respondent: Cornelia Johanna Bouwer; Respondent: Charles Kgomotso Tsoku
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 90433/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
- Judges
- S. Potterill
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs in the Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Applicant
Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin
Respondent
Pieter Nicolaas Grobler
Respondent
Anna Ellissabeth Grobler
Respondent
Ethel Margaret Coetzee
Respondent
Martha Margaretha du Plessis
Respondent
Johannes Jacobus Lombard
Respondent
Reseane Kaizer Humphry Makole
Respondent
Yvonne Good
Respondent
Lynn East Prop (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Diana Edit Georgiades
Respondent
Fredierik Jackobus van der Sande
Respondent
Jeanne Louise van der Sande
Respondent
Edmour Marchand
Respondent
Nadia Marchand
Respondent
Marc Richard Truman N.O.
Respondent
Gregory John Bouwer
Respondent
Cornelia Johanna Bouwer
Respondent
Charles Kgomotso Tsoku
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons for a higher court to consider the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although it did not consider its judgment necessarily wrong, the subject matter of the case is sufficiently important to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judge determined that compelling reasons exist for granting leave to appeal, as the issues raised may benefit from scrutiny by a higher court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted, with costs to be costs in the appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case Number: 90433/2018
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
Date: 2023-05-10
In the matter between:
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant and MALVIGENIX NPC t/a WECANWIN First Respondent PIETER NICOLAAS GROBLER Second Respondent ANNA ELLISSABETH GROBLER Third Respondent ETHEL MARGARET COETZEE Fourth Respondent MARTHA MARGARETHA DU PLESIS Fifth Respondent JOHANNES JACOBUS LOMBARD Sixth Respondent RESEANE KAIZER HUMPHRY MAKOLE Seventh Respondent YVONNE GOOD Eighth Respondent LYNN EAST PROP (PTY) LTD Ninth Respondent DIANA EDIT GEORGIADES Tenth Respondent FREDIERIK JACKOBUS VAN DER SANDE Eleventh Respondent JEANNE LOUISE VAN DER SANDE Twelfth Respondent EDMOUR MARCHAND Thirteenth Respondent NADIA MARCHAND Fourteenth Respondent MARC RICHARD TRUMAN N.O. Fifteenth Respondent GREGORY JOHN BOUWER Sixteenth Respondent CORNELIA JOHANNA BOUWER Seventeenth Respondent CHARLES KGOMOTSO TSOKU Eighteenth Respondent
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
POTTERILL J
[1] I have listened to the parties and have read the papers. I think for compelling reasons, leave to appeal can be granted.
[2] I pondered this. I think it is something that the Supreme Court of Appeal can look at so I will grant leave to appeal. I don’t think the judgment was necessarily wrong, but I think the subject matter attracts attention from a higher court.
[3] The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
S. POTTERILL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE NO: 90433/2018
HEARD ON: 01/10/23 FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV. T. STRYDOM SC ADV. L. KOTZE INSTRUCTED BY: Mothle Jooma Sabdia Incorporated FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV. N. FERREIRA ADV. A. MOLVER INSTRUCTED BY: Adams & Adams DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/10/23 DATE OF JUDGMENT DISTRIBUTED TO PARTIES: 05/10/23