Du Preez v Van Rooyen (26156/2020; 14886/16) [2021] ZAGPPHC 181 (1 March 2021)

Du Preez v Van Rooyen (26156/2020; 14886/16) [2021] ZAGPPHC 181 (1 March 2021)

The court found, after considering the written heads of argument and hearing counsel, that there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the order made on 18 January 2021. The threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act and interpreted in relevant case law, was met. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Full Court of the Division, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 181
Parties
Applicant: Sonja Du Preez (nee De Klerk); Respondent: Petrus Willem Van Rooyen
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2021
Case Number
26156/2020; 14886/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Division, with costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Close Corporation Membership Termination, Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs in Appeal
Commercial and Corporate Close Corporation Membership Termination Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs in Appeal

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonja Du Preez (nee De Klerk)

Applicant

Petrus Willem Van Rooyen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment and order of 18 January 2021.
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard by the Full Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, after considering the written heads of argument and hearing counsel, that there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the order made on 18 January 2021. The threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act and interpreted in relevant case law, was met. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Full Court of the Division, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Division, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division.
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal.