Griffioen v Griffioen and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2025/039891) [2025] ZAGPPHC 656 (24 June 2025)

Griffioen v Griffioen and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2025/039891) [2025] ZAGPPHC 656 (24 June 2025)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal did not satisfy the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. There were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor were there compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. The court reaffirmed its earlier findings regarding lack of urgency and locus standi. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs on the prescribed scale.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 656
Parties
Applicant: Anita Griffioen; Respondent: Johannes Griffioen; Respondent: Heinrich Olivier; Respondent: Alan Jordaan N.O.; Respondent: Otto Krause Attorneys
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2025
Case Number
2025/039891
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Holland-Muter
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Urgency, Locus Standi, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Urgency Locus Standi Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anita Griffioen

Applicant

Johannes Griffioen

Respondent

Heinrich Olivier

Respondent

Alan Jordaan N.O.

Respondent

Otto Krause Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold set by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different decision.
  3. 3 Whether there are compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal did not satisfy the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. There were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor were there compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. The court reaffirmed its earlier findings regarding lack of urgency and locus standi. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs on the prescribed scale.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the applicant on the scale set out in Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.