Koch & Kruger Brokers CC and Another v Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Others (48799/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 121 (22 February 2022)

Koch & Kruger Brokers CC and Another v Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Others (48799/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 121 (22 February 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to challenge the contractual basis of the Babens' claim and did not provide any compelling reason or reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act was not met, as there was no sound, rational basis for another court to reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 121
Parties
Applicant: Koch & Kruger Brokers CC; Applicant: Deon Kruger; Respondent: Financial Sector Conduct Authority; Respondent: Ombuds for Financial Service Providers; Respondent: Her Ladyship Mrs Justiceof Appeal; Respondent: Yvonne Mokgoro N.O.; Respondent: Financial Services Tribunal; Respondent: George Baben; Respondent: Lucille Miriam Baben
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2022
Case Number
48799/19
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
P M Mabuse
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Threshold, Breach of Contract, Causation, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Threshold Breach of Contract Causation Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koch & Kruger Brokers CC

Applicant

Deon Kruger

Applicant

Financial Sector Conduct Authority

Respondent

Ombuds for Financial Service Providers

Respondent

Her Ladyship Mrs Justiceof Appeal

Respondent

Yvonne Mokgoro N.O.

Respondent

Financial Services Tribunal

Respondent

George Baben

Respondent

Lucille Miriam Baben

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the main judgment.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the loss suffered by the fifth and sixth respondents was caused by breach of contract by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to challenge the contractual basis of the Babens' claim and did not provide any compelling reason or reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act was not met, as there was no sound, rational basis for another court to reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.