Deniwa Food Consortium and Another v Minister of Defence (16678/06) [2009] ZAGPPHC 269 (7 August 2009)

Deniwa Food Consortium and Another v Minister of Defence (16678/06) [2009] ZAGPPHC 269 (7 August 2009)

The court found, after due reflection, that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on the merits of the original judgment. The delay in bringing the application was not attributed to either counsel and did not affect the substantive consideration of the application....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 269
Parties
Applicant: Deniwa Food Consortium; Applicant: D C Louw; Respondent: Minister of Defence
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2009
Case Number
16678/06
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Opposed Motion Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs Award

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deniwa Food Consortium

Applicant

D C Louw

Applicant

Minister of Defence

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Opposed Motion Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on the merits of the original judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application for leave to appeal affects its consideration.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, after due reflection, that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on the merits of the original judgment. The delay in bringing the application was not attributed to either counsel and did not affect the substantive consideration of the application. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.