Griffioen v Griffioen and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2025/039891) [2025] ZAGPPHC 656 (24 June 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 656
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Holland-Muter
- Case number
- 2025/039891
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Holland-Muter
- Case number
- 2025/039891
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Anita Griffioen
Applicant Counsel: C BarreiroJohannes Griffioen
RespondentHeinrich Olivier
Respondent Counsel: W C CarstensAlan Jordaan N.O.
RespondentOtto Krause Attorneys
Respondent Counsel: C B Garvey03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold set by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 02
Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different decision.
- 03
Whether there are compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the court erred in finding a lack of urgency and locus standi, and that there are prospects of success on appeal. The applicant submitted that the matter involves important issues warranting reconsideration by another court.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the application for leave to appeal does not meet the requirements of section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, as there are no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. They argued that the original judgment was correct and costs should follow the result.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may only be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or there are compelling reasons for it to be heard.
- 02
Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court
Costs are awarded on the scale set out in Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court when applications are dismissed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that there was nothing further to add to the extempore judgment and written reasons previously furnished.
- The uploading of the judgment onto Caselines is deemed to be the date of judgment.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- 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.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
{GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 2025/039891
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE: 24 June 2025
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
ANITA
GRIFFIOEN
Applicant/Appellant
and
JOHANNES
GRIFFIOEN
1st Respondent
HEINRICH
OLIVIER
2nd Respondent
ALAN
JORDAAN N.O.
3rd Respondent
OTTO
KRAUSE ATTORNEYS
4th Respondent
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
(The matter was heard in open court on 1 April 2025 in the Urgent Court. The application was dismissed for lack of urgency and lack of locus standi. Written reasons for the extempore judgment were handed down on 23 April 2025. The application for leave to appeal was heard in open court on 13 June 2025 and judgment is handed down by uploading thereof onto the electronic file of the matter on Caselines. The date of uploading onto Caselines is deemed to be the date of the judgment).
BEFORE: HOLLAND-MUTER J:
[1] Having heard counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings and heads of arguments uploaded onto Caselines, and considering the provisions of Section 17(1) (a) (i) & (ii) of the Superior Court Act 10 of 2013, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success that another court would come to another decision; of that there are some other compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard.
[2] There is nothing further to add to the extempore judgment and the written reasons furnished.
[3] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, costs to be on Scale Bas contained in Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
HOLLAND-MUTER J
Judge of the Pretoria High Court
24 June 202
Counsel for the Applicant:
Adv C Barreiro
Counsel for Second Respondent:
Adv W C Carstens
Counsel for Fourth Respondent
Adv C B Garvey
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.