Cream We Go (Pty) Ltd and Another v Paul's Homemade (Pty) Ltd and Others (013187/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 205 (4 March 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 205
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Kumalo
- Case number
- 013187/2022
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Kumalo
- Case number
- 013187/2022
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants raised issues that warrant consideration by a higher court and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of this division. Costs are reserved for determination in the main leave hearing.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full bench; costs reserved for the main leave hearing.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of this division.
- Costs will be costs in the main leave hearing.
02
Material facts
Parties
Cream We Go (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Adv R RaubenheimerSonja Boshoff
Applicant Counsel: Adv R RaubenheimerPaul's Homemade (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv C ShahimArbitration Foundation of Southern Africa
Respondent Counsel: Adv C ShahimAdv AE Bham SC N.O.
Respondent Counsel: Adv C ShahimNational Consumer Commission
Respondent Counsel: Adv C Shahim03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment handed down on 28 August 2024.
- 02
Whether costs should be reserved for the main leave hearing.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants submitted that the judgment of 28 August 2024 contains errors of law and fact warranting reconsideration by a higher court. They argued that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that the issues raised are of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the full bench.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the application for leave to appeal lacks merit, as the judgment was correctly decided and no compelling grounds for appeal exist. They further argued that granting leave would unnecessarily prolong the litigation and increase costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should be granted where there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants raised issues that warrant consideration by a higher court and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of this division. Costs are reserved for determination in the main leave hearing.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full bench; costs reserved for the main leave hearing.
- Leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of this division.
- Costs will be costs in the main leave hearing.
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
Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 013187/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: [N]
(3) REVISED: [N]
(4) Signature: ____
Date: 4/03/25
In the matter between:
CREAM WE GO (PTY)
LTD
First Applicant
SONJA
BOSHOFF
Second Applicant
and
PAUL’S HOMEMADE (PTY)
LTD
First Respondent
ARBITRATION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN AFRICA Second Respondent
ADV.
AE BHAM SC N.O.
Third Respondent
NATIONAL
CONSUMER COMMISSION
Fourth Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kumalo J
[1]. This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment of this court handed down on 28 August 2024.
[2]. Having read the application for leave to appeal and heard counsels in the matter, the following order is made:
ORDER
1. Leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of this division; and
2. Costs will be costs in the main leave hearing.
KUMALO MP J
Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Counsel for the applicant: Adv R Raubenheimer Instructed by: Tobias Bron Inc Attorneys Counsel for the respondents: Adv C Shahim Instructed by: Swartz Weil Van der Merwe Greenberg Inc
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.