Lourens DP (Pty) Ltd v Engelbrecht N.O and Others (048287/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 841 (2 September 2024)

Lourens DP (Pty) Ltd v Engelbrecht N.O and Others (048287/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 841 (2 September 2024)

The court found that the grounds advanced for leave to appeal were a repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the main judgment. Upon reviewing the submissions, the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there was any compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded against the applicants, including the costs of counsel on scale C.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 841
Parties
Plaintiff: Lourens DP (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Engelbrecht, Nicolien N.O; Defendant: Engelbrecht, Nicolien; Defendant: Vleissentraal Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Meyer Attorneys Incorporated
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2024
Case Number
048287/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Costs Order, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Costs Order Superior Courts Act

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

Parties

Lourens DP (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Engelbrecht, Nicolien N.O

Defendant

Engelbrecht, Nicolien

Defendant

Vleissentraal Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Meyer Attorneys Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success or any compelling reason for granting leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether costs should follow the result of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds advanced for leave to appeal were a repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the main judgment. Upon reviewing the submissions, the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there was any compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded against the applicants, including the costs of counsel on scale C.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs, including the costs of counsel on scale C.