Le Roux v Dirkdale Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (7576/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 286 (6 November 2008)
The court found that the judgment on claim A was sound and represented the only reasonable conclusion based on the facts and arguments presented. However, the court acknowledged that legal disputes are not always clear-cut and that another court might reasonably reach a different decision on claim B. Accordingly,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] ZAWCHC 286
- Parties
- Applicant: David Edward Le Roux; Respondent: Dirkdale Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Pieter Louis Morris; Respondent: Linda Elizabeth Pasley
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 7576/2008
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal on claim A is refused; leave to appeal on claim B is granted.
- Judges
- Maqubela
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Judgment Review
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Edward Le Roux
Applicant
Dirkdale Investments (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Pieter Louis Morris
Respondent
Linda Elizabeth Pasley
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on claim A.
- 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on claim B.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the judgment on claim A was sound and represented the only reasonable conclusion based on the facts and arguments presented. However, the court acknowledged that legal disputes are not always clear-cut and that another court might reasonably reach a different decision on claim B. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused on claim A and granted on claim B.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal on claim A is refused; leave to appeal on claim B is granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal on claim A is refused.
- Leave to appeal on claim B is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO: 7567/2008
DATE: 6 NOVEMBER 2008
In the matter between:
DAVID EDWARD LE ROUX APPLICANT
Versus
DIRKDALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 1st RESPONDENT
PIETER LOUIS MORRIS 2nd RESPONDENT
LINDA ELIZABETH PASLEY 3rd RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MAOUBELA A.J.
I have read the affidavits in support of the applications, and I have listened to your arguments, both of you.
It is always, I guess, an easy matter in an application for leave to appeal to just simply say refused or granted, but an issue has been raised here for me to refuse the leave to appeal on claim A and then granting it on claim B, which is some kind of compromise, so to speak. Indeed for my part, I am convinced that the judgment on claim A is a sound one. I have read all the papers to just make sure that I understood, firstly, the issues that were raised during the trial and I am convinced that at least the judgment that I had arrived at was the only possibility, given the circumstances and the facts and the argument of the case before me.
But because, obviously, legal contestation is not a mathematical equation strictly speaking, you will always find that there are varying approaches to one single issue, I agree with the approach that a different Court may arrive at a different decision on claim B, on claim A I do not think I need to grant leave there; so the order then would be that leave to appeal on claim A is REFUSED and leave to appeal on claim B is GRANTED
MAQUBELA, AJ