Gravitate Multi Video Content (Pty) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (2021-27241) [2024] ZAGPJHC 216 (4 March 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 216
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Vally
- Case number
- 2021-27241
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Vally
- Case number
- 2021-27241
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants failed to raise any cogent substantive grounds demonstrating that the judgment was incorrect in fact or law. The application for leave to appeal merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected in the main judgment. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion, and therefore, leave to appeal must be refused.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Gravitate Multi Video Content (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Johan FourieJustice Kudumela N.O.
Applicant Counsel: Johan FourieABSA Bank Ltd
Respondent Counsel: G Amm03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion on the facts and law.
- 02
Whether the alleged misdirections in the judgment warrant leave to appeal.
- 03
Whether the applicants have raised cogent substantive grounds for appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that the judgment is affected by several misdirections, including a failure to address the ESD agreement between the first applicant and the respondent and a failure to find in their favour. They argue that these issues merit consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal and that their case should be ventilated further.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintains that all relevant contentions were comprehensively addressed in the main judgment and that the application for leave to appeal merely repeats arguments previously rejected. The respondent submits that no substantive grounds have been raised to justify leave to appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should only be granted where there are cogent substantive grounds showing that the rejection of contentions was incorrect in fact or law, and that another court may reach a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to raise any cogent substantive grounds demonstrating that the judgment was incorrect in fact or law. The application for leave to appeal merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected in the main judgment. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion, and therefore, leave to appeal must be refused.
Obiter and limits
- Applicants often misconstrue the purpose of leave to appeal, believing it is sufficient to merely restate previously rejected arguments.
- The threshold for granting leave to appeal is not met by dissatisfaction with the outcome but by substantive grounds indicating a reasonable prospect of success.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2021/ 27241
1.Reportable: No
2.Of Interest to other Judges: No
4 March 2024
In the matter between:
GRAVITATE MULTI VIDEO CONTENT (PTY) LTD
First Applicant
JUSTICE
KUDUMELA N.O.
Second Applicant
and
ABSA
BANK
LTD
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vally J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) against a judgment and order I issued on 23 November 2023. The applicants herein were the first and second respondents in the main application. The judgment in the matter is comprehensive. It dealt with every relevant contention raised by them at that hearing. Nevertheless, they are aggrieved by the judgment and the order and asked that they be given an opportunity to ventilate their case in the SCA. They say that the judgment is beset by a number of misdirections which call for the attention of the SCA. The alleged misdirections are, according to them, a failure to attend to the issue of the ESD agreement between the first applicant and the respondent and more importantly a failure to find in their favour. In my judgment the application constitutes a repetition of all the arguments they advanced at the main hearing.
The relevant ones, as I say above, have been comprehensively dealt with in the judgment.
[2] Leave to appeal should not be granted simply because an applicant for leave complains that their contentions were rejected. There must be cogent substantive grounds raised that show that those contentions were correct either in fact or in law, and that their rejection was wrong to the point where it does not support the issuing of the corresponding order. This the present applicants do not do. There is thus no prospect that another court invested with the same facts as this court would come to a different conclusion.
[3] Accordingly, the following order is made:
a. Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Date of hearing: 4 March 2024
Date of judgment: 4 March 2024
For the applicants: Johan Fourie
Instructed by: Saltzman Attorneys
For the respondents: G Amm
Instructed by: Werksmans Attorneys
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.