Giyani Engineering and Construction CC and Others v Maps Civil and Landscaping CC and Others (95141/2015) [2021] ZAGPPHC 61 (9 February 2021)

Giyani Engineering and Construction CC and Others v Maps Civil and Landscaping CC and Others (95141/2015) [2021] ZAGPPHC 61 (9 February 2021)

The court found that neither party properly addressed the requirements for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Court Act. The Applicants failed to demonstrate any error in the judgment or reasonable prospects of success. The Respondents also failed to confine their submissions to the relevant criteria. The court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 61
Parties
Applicant: Giyani Engineering and Consulting CC; Applicant: Giyani Gloria Mhlanga; Applicant: Calvin Mutize; Respondent: Maps Civil and Landscaping CC; Respondent: Bridget Thandeka Duma; Respondent: Moses Mapolisa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2021
Case Number
95141/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 5 December 2019.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
G.T. Avvakoumides
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Representation of Juristic Person, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Representation of Juristic Person Costs Award

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giyani Engineering and Consulting CC

Applicant

Giyani Gloria Mhlanga

Applicant

Calvin Mutize

Applicant

Maps Civil and Landscaping CC

Respondent

Bridget Thandeka Duma

Respondent

Moses Mapolisa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 5 December 2019.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal demonstrates reasonable prospects of success as required by section 17 of the Superior Court Act.
  2. 2 Whether the First Applicant, a juristic person, was properly represented in terms of the prior order by Roux AJ.
  3. 3 Whether the submissions made by the parties addressed the requirements for leave to appeal rather than the merits of the main litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither party properly addressed the requirements for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Court Act. The Applicants failed to demonstrate any error in the judgment or reasonable prospects of success. The Respondents also failed to confine their submissions to the relevant criteria. The court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.