Companies and Intellectual Property Comission v Maja and Others (Leave to Appeal) (62755/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 582 (21 June 2024)
After considering the judgment delivered on 9 April 2024, the heads of argument, and oral submissions, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion. The legal threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 582
- Parties
- Applicant: Companies and Intellectual Property Comission; Respondent: M Maja; Respondent: T N Sindane; Respondent: Dr S S Sibiya; Respondent: M S Tsie; Respondent: T Motlogeloa; Respondent: BG Imbokodvo; Respondent: M M Tshitshonga
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 62755/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 9 April 2024.
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- R G Tolmay
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Prospects 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
Companies and Intellectual Property Comission
Applicant
M Maja
Respondent
T N Sindane
Respondent
Dr S S Sibiya
Respondent
M S Tsie
Respondent
T Motlogeloa
Respondent
BG Imbokodvo
Respondent
M M Tshitshonga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 9 April 2024.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 April 2024.
- 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Full Court of this Division.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
After considering the judgment delivered on 9 April 2024, the heads of argument, and oral submissions, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion. The legal threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, was not met. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 62755/2018
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE:21/6/2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
THE COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Applicant
COMISSION
And
M MAJA
First Respondent
T N SINDANE
Second Respondent
DR S S SIBIYA
Third Respondent
M S TSIE
Fourth Respondent
T MOTLOGELOA
Fifth Respondent
BG IMBOKODVO
Sixth Respondent
M M TSHITSHONGA Seventh Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
TOLMAY J
Introduction
1. This is judgment for an application for leave to appeal by the applicant to the Supreme Court of Appeal or alternatively the Full Court of this Division, following my judgment dated 9 April 2024.
2. After considering my judgment, the heads of argument and the arguments of the parties in court, I am of the view that there exists no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
The following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
R G TOLMAY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Adv C Van Rensburg instructed by The State Attorney Pretoria. Counsel for 1st – 5th Respondents: Adv M R Maputha & Mr M Matlala instructed by Nkoana Matlala Inc. Counsel for 7th Respondent: Adv R Willis SC instructed by W Marais Attorneys. Date heard: 20 June 2024 Date of Judgment: 21 June 2024