Direct Rewards Limited (Pty) Ltd and Others v Seetaram (35836/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 58 (1 March 2019)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The laptop, documents, and keys had already been returned prior to the return day, making the confirmation of the rule nisi impossible to perform. The court was not persuaded that another court would reach a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] ZAGPJHC 58
- Parties
- Applicant: Direct Rewards Limited (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Shaik Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Affordable Benefits (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: The Activation Agency (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Suleman Shaik; Respondent: Rikash Seetaram
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 35836/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Discharge of Rule Nisi
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- E Molahlehi
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Rule Nisi, Costs Order, Urgency Reconsideration
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Direct Rewards Limited (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Shaik Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Affordable Benefits (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
The Activation Agency (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Suleman Shaik
Applicant
Rikash Seetaram
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Discharge of Rule Nisi
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal as required by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 2 Whether the discharge of the rule nisi was correct given the return of the laptop and documents.
- 3 Whether the court's approach to reconsidering urgency in the context of costs was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The laptop, documents, and keys had already been returned prior to the return day, making the confirmation of the rule nisi impossible to perform. The court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the discharge of the rule nisi or the reconsideration of urgency in the context of costs. The reasons provided in the original judgment were upheld, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The applicants’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 35836/2017
In the matter between:
DIRECT REWARDS LIMITED (PTY) LTD First
Applicant
SHAIK INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Second
Applicant
AFFORDABLE BENEFITS (PTY) LTD Third
Applicant
THE ACTIVATION AGENCY (PTY) LTD Fourth
Applicant
SULEMAN SHAIK Fifth
Applicant
and
RIKASH SEETARAM Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
Molahlehi, J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court made on 14 December 2018. The main issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of the rule nisi which was granted in their favour on 26 September 2016. The confirmation was refused and accordingly the rule nisi was discharged.
[2] The test to apply in considering an application of this nature is whether there is, as envisaged by the provisions of s 17(1) (a) (i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (the Act), reasonable prospects of success.
[3] The applicants in the present matter have raised several grounds of appeal which are set out in their application. The same are on record and thus it is not necessary to repeat in this judgment.
[4] The main case of the applicant was about the return of the laptop and the various documents contained therein. As appears from the judgment the respondent upon his resignation from his employ with the applicants took with him the laptop and the office keys. The order confirming the rule nisi on the return day would have been impossible to perform as at that point the laptop, the documents contained therein and the keys were already returned to the applicant. I am not persuaded that another court is likely to arrive at the decision different to that reached by this court in that regard.
[5] I am further not persuaded that another court is likely to arrive at a different decision as concerning the approach adopted in the judgment concerning the reconsideration of urgency. The issue of reconsidering urgency arose in the context of determining the issue of costs. This issue is addressed in the judgment. I stand by the reasons proffered for the approach adopted in the judgment and have not been persuaded that another court is likely to arrive at a different conclusion than that reached by this court.
[6] In the circumstances I find that the applicants have failed to make out a case for leave to appeal.
Order
[7] In the premises the applicants’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
______________________
E Molahlehi
Judge of the High Court,
Gauteng Local Division,
Johannesburg
Representation: For the Applicant: Adv L Halgryn SC with Adv CT Vetter
Instructed by: ABBA PARAK INCORPORATED
For the Respondent: Adv C Van der Merwe
Instructed by: SENEKAL SIMMONDS INCORPORATED
Heard on: 21 February 2019
Delivered on: 01 March 2019