Kreetiv Communication CC v Harrington N.O. and Others (21549/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 89 (6 February 2024)

Kreetiv Communication CC v Harrington N.O. and Others (21549/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 89 (6 February 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds of appeal and the parties' arguments, the judge was not persuaded that there was a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the interlocutory order allowing the respondents to file a supplementary affidavit and requiring the applicant to provide security for costs. The court also found no compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 89
Parties
Applicant: Kreetiv Communication CC; Respondent: Andrew James Harrington N.O.; Respondent: Marius Hoff Muller N.O.; Respondent: John Russel Mackey N.O.; Respondent: Inge Frances Pick N.O.; Respondent: Kuper Legh Property Managers (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2024
Case Number
21549/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Senyatsi M L
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Security for Costs, Supplementary Affidavit, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Security for Costs Supplementary Affidavit Prospects of Success

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kreetiv Communication CC

Applicant

Andrew James Harrington N.O.

Respondent

Marius Hoff Muller N.O.

Respondent

John Russel Mackey N.O.

Respondent

Inge Frances Pick N.O.

Respondent

Kuper Legh Property Managers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the requirements for leave to appeal under 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 conclusion regarding the interlocutory order.
  3. 3 Whether there is any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds of appeal and the parties' arguments, the judge was not persuaded that there was a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the interlocutory order allowing the respondents to file a supplementary affidavit and requiring the applicant to provide security for costs. The court also found no compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.