Lendtech Investment Holdings Private Limited v IMS Tech Corp Limited and Others (2023-025384) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1042 (18 September 2023)
The court found that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and that there is no other compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted. The change in argument by the applicant does not render the application dishonest, but does not justify granting leave. The application is therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 1042
- Parties
- Applicant: Lendtech Investment Holdings Private Limited; Respondent: IMS Tech Corp Limited; Respondent: IMS Ventures (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: IMS Ventures Digital (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mobi Systems Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Telkom SA SOC Limited; Respondent: MTN Group Limited; Respondent: Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2023-025384
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Main Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
- Judges
- GC Wright
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lendtech Investment Holdings Private Limited
Applicant
IMS Tech Corp Limited
Respondent
IMS Ventures (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
IMS Ventures Digital (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Mobi Systems Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Telkom SA SOC Limited
Respondent
MTN Group Limited
Respondent
Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Main Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 2 Whether there is any other compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded on a punitive scale.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and that there is no other compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted. The change in argument by the applicant does not render the application dishonest, but does not justify granting leave. The application is therefore dismissed, and ordinary costs are awarded, including costs for two counsel where employed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel where so employed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
54 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2023-025384
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
18.09.23
In the matter between:
LENDTECH INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMTED APPLICANT And IMS TECH CORP LIMITED 1st RESPONDENT IMS VENTURES (PTY) LTD 2nd RESPONDENT IMS VENTURES DIGITAL (PTY) LTD 3rd RESPONDENT MOBI SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD 4th RESPONDENT TELKOM SA SOC LIMITED 5th RESPONDENT MTN GROUP LIMITED 6th RESPONDENT MOBILE TELEPHONE NETWORKS (PTY) LTD 7th RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
WRIGHT J
1. On 6 June 2023 I handed down a typed, signed judgment in the main application. This judgment is to be read with that judgment.
2. Lendtech now seeks leave to appeal my order of 6 June 2023.
3. In my view and with the provisions of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 in mind the applicant, Lendtech has no reasonable prospect on appeal and under section 17(1)(a)(ii) there is no other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.
4. The respondents sought dismissal of this application with costs on a punitive scale. The arguments are that this application, like that before me originally, is hopeless and there has been a change of tack in argument on appeal.
5. I would not go so far as to find that the present application is dishonest just because there is a change in argument. Taking perhaps a somewhat lenient view of the applicant’s case now, ordinary costs suffice in the present application.
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel where so employed.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 18 September 2023
DELIVERED : 18 September 2023
APPEARANCES :
APPLICANT
Adv Anthonie Jansen Van Vuuren SC
vanv@law.co.za
Instructed by KapdiTwala Inc t/a Vanessa Jacklin-Levin and Kirith Haria
Vanessa.jacklinlevin@dentons.com / Kirith.haria@dentons.com / Johannesburg.litigations.com
1st to 4th RESPONDENTS
Adv Alfred Cockrell SC
Adv Luke Kelly
Jeremy@gauntlett.co.za
Luke.kelly@capebar.co.za
Instructed by CMS Attorney
siphokazi.kayana@cms-rm.com
nomfundo.m-jackson@cms-rm.com
5th RESPONDENT
Adv Nazeer Cassim SC
Adv Yakoob Alli
Ncassim@law.co.za
Alli@counsel.co.za
Instructed by Webber Wentzel Attorneys
Priyesh.daya@webberwentzel.com
martin.hattingh@webberwentzel.com
6th and 7th RESPONDENTS
Adv Dennis Fine SC
Adv Makhotso Lengane
Dennis@counsel.co.za
Lengane@group621.co.za
Instructed by Werksmans Attorneys
Cmanaka@werksmans.com
abilatyi@werksmans.com
krapoo@werksmans.com