JR209 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Homeless People Housing Cooperative Limited and Others (24505/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 290 (11 July 2019)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO

(3) REVISED: No

Case No. 24505/2019

In the matter between:

JR209 INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD

FIRST APPLICANT

IDLEWILD FARM (PTY) LTD

SECOND APPLICANT

IDLEWILD FARM CC (PTY) LTD

THIRD APPLICANT

LIBERINI 112 CC

FOURTH APPLICANT

HY-LINE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD

FIFTH APPLICANT

MALUUVHA KWEKERY (PTY) LTD

SIXTH APPLICANT

And

HOMELESS PEOPLE HOUSING COOPERATIVE

FIRST RESPONDENT

LIMITED

THE EKHURULENI METROPOLITAN

SECOND RESPONDENT

MUNICIPALITY

THE UNLAWFUL INVADERS OF PORTIONS 8,

THIRD RESPONDENT

10 AND 39 OF THE FARM WITKOPPIES 393

EKHURULENI

THE GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF

FOURTH RESPONDENT

AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

THE MINISTER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN FIFTH RESPONDENT

POLICE SERVICES

COLONEL RAKGALAKANE, STATION

SIXTH RESPONDENT

COMMISSIONER OF SAPS OLIFANTSFONTEIN

SAMUEL MANDLHA SONGO

SEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

MILLAR. A J

1. This is an application for leave to appeal by the first and seventh

respondents against an order handed down on 26 April 2019.

2. The test for the granting of leave to appeal is set out in S 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act[1] as follows:

"Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that-

(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or

(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard; including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;

3. This application sets out number of different grounds upon which it is alleged the court erred. Broadly these are firstly that the court postponed the application to hold the seventh respondent in contempt,

secondly that the first respondent was held to be in contempt of an order granted on 19 April 2019, thirdly that credibility findings

were made against the seventh respondent and lastly that paragraph 5.2 of the order in question may be interpreted to authorize the demolition of occupied structures.

4. I have considered the grounds upon which this application for leave to appeal has been brought, the reasons for granting the order of 26 April 2019 and the arguments advanced by the parties and am of the view that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is any compelling reason

why leave to appeal should be granted in this matter.

5. In the circumstances, I make the following order:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

A MILLAR

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

HEARD ON:

11 JULY 2019

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:

11 JULY 2019

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS:

ADV. WR DU PREEZ

(1ST & 7TH RESPONDENTS IN THE MAIN ACTION)

INSTRUCTED BY:

LE ROUX & DU PLESSIS INC.

REFERENCE:

MR G DU PLESSIS

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

ADV. P LOURENS

(1ST - 6TH APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION)

INSTRUCTED BY

: ROESTOFF ATTORNEYS

REFERENCE

: MR JJ ROESTOFF

[1] Act 10 of 2013