De Wet N.O and Others v Walker and Others (Leave to Appeal) (16480/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1214 (28 September 2023)
The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the arguments presented by counsel for both sides. It found that the respondents failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judgment was found to be correctly decided, and no compelling reason was presented to justify granting leave...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPPHC 1214
- Parties
- Applicant: Gert Lourens Steyn De Wet NO.; Applicant: Karen Keevy NO.; Applicant: Simoe Liesel Magardie NO.; Applicant: Irene Suzan Ponnen NO.; Applicant: Aurora Empowerment Systems Pty Ltd (In Liquidation); Respondent: John Walker; Respondent: John Walker Attorneys Inc; Respondent: Schabort Potgieter Attorneys; Respondent: Deon Marius Botha NO.; Respondent: Barend Petersen NO.; Respondent: Allan David Pellow NO.; Respondent: Johan Francois Engelbrecht; Respondent: Pamodzi Gold Estate Rand Pty Ltd; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Pretoria
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 16480/20
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
- Judges
- SKOSANA
- 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
Gert Lourens Steyn De Wet NO.
Applicant
Karen Keevy NO.
Applicant
Simoe Liesel Magardie NO.
Applicant
Irene Suzan Ponnen NO.
Applicant
Aurora Empowerment Systems Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
Applicant
John Walker
Respondent
John Walker Attorneys Inc
Respondent
Schabort Potgieter Attorneys
Respondent
Deon Marius Botha NO.
Respondent
Barend Petersen NO.
Respondent
Allan David Pellow NO.
Respondent
Johan Francois Engelbrecht
Respondent
Pamodzi Gold Estate Rand Pty Ltd
Respondent
The Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the respondents against the judgment.
- 2 Whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicants for leave to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the arguments presented by counsel for both sides. It found that the respondents failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judgment was found to be correctly decided, and no compelling reason was presented to justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded against the applicants for leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
[GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA]
CASE NO: 16480/20
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 28/09/2023
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:-
GERT LOURENS STEYN DE WET NO.
First Applicant
KAREN KEEVY NO.
Second Applicant
SIMOE LIESEL MAGARDIE NO.
Third Applicant
IRENE SUZAN PONNEN NO.
Fourth Applicant
[as the joined liquidators of Aurora Empowerment Systems Pty Ltd]
AURORA EMPOWERMENT SYSTEMS PTY LTD
(IN LIQUIDATION)
Fifth Applicant
and
JOHN WALKER
First Respondent
JOHN WALKER ATTORNEYS INC
Second Respondent
SCHABORT POTGIETER ATTORNEYS
Third Respondent
DEON MARIUS BOTHA NO.
Fourth Respondent
BAREND PETERSEN NO.
Fifth Respondent
ALLAN DAVID PELLOW NO.
Sixth Respondent
JOHAN FRANCOIS ENGELBRECHT
Seventh Respondent
[as liquidators of Pamodzi Gold Estate Rand Ply Ltd]
PAMODZI GOLD ESTATE RAND PTY LTD
Eighth Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA Ninth Respondent
JUDGMENT
SKOSANA AJ
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment. To avoid confusion, I refer to the parties as in the original application. The application for leave to appeal has been brought by the first and second respondents as well as the fourth to eighth respondents.
[2] I have considered the grounds for leave to appeal as well as the arguments presented by the respective counsel. I am not persuaded that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success.
[3] Consequently, I make the following order:
[1] Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
DT SKOSANA
Acting Judge of the High Court
Pretoria