De Villiers v Jones and Another (48438/2011) [2020] ZAGPJHC 354 (25 June 2020)
The court considered the grounds for appeal and the submissions of counsel for both parties. It reaffirmed the reasons given in the original judgment and found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold required for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The court concluded that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] ZAGPJHC 354
- Parties
- Applicant: Shenaaz Ve De Villiers; Respondent: Zaaiboonisha Jones; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 48438/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
- Judges
- L T Modiba
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Superior Courts Act
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shenaaz Ve De Villiers
Applicant
Zaaiboonisha Jones
Respondent
Registrar of Deeds
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.
- 2 Whether the threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act is met.
Ratio Decidendi
The court considered the grounds for appeal and the submissions of counsel for both parties. It reaffirmed the reasons given in the original judgment and found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold required for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
COMMERCIAL COURT
(1) NOT REPORTABLE
(2) NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
25 June 2020
CASE NO: 48438/2011
In the matter between:
SHENAAZ VE DE VILLIERS
Applicant/ Plaintiff
and
ZAAIBOONISHA JONES
First Respondent/ First Defendant
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Second Respondent/ Second Defendant
JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MODIBA J:
[1] The applicant, who was the plaintiff in the action (De Villiers), has applied for leave to appeal the judgment and order that I handed down on 18 May 2020. The First Respondent, who was the First Defendant in the action (Jones), is the only respondent opposing the application.
[2] De Villiers relies on section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. It provides:
“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that-
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success;”
[3] It has become trite that this provision only allows leave to appeal to be granted where the applicant establishes that another court would arrive at different findings and order from that rendered in the judgment appealed against.[1]
[4] De Villiers has set out her grounds of appeal in detail. Jones contends that there are no prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion on these issues.
[5] I have considered the grounds for appeal as set out in De Villiers’ notice of appeal as well as submissions by counsel for the parties. I stand by my reasons for judgment as set out in the judgment handed down in this matter.
[6] I find that De Villiers fails to meet the threshold referred to above.
[7] In the premises, the following order is made:
ORDER
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, which costs shall include the costs of two counsel where so employed.
MS L T MODIBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Plaintiff:
Advocate P Springveldt
Instructed by:
G.W. Mashele Attorneys
Counsel for the First Defendant: Advocate EL Theron SC
Advocate T Steyn
Instructed by:
Klopper Jonker Inc.
Date of Judgment:
25 June 2020
[1] The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others 2014 JDR 2325 (LCC) at para [6].