Madibeng Local Municipality v DDP Valuers and Another (54048/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 771 (1 November 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 771
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- C Pretorius
- Case number
- 54048/2016
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- C Pretorius
- Case number
- 54048/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, after considering the grounds for leave to appeal and the arguments presented by both parties, there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed. Costs are awarded against the applicant.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Madibeng Local Municipality
Applicant Counsel: Adv T Motau SCDDP Valuers
Respondent Counsel: Adv BC Stoop SCActiva Valuation Services (Pty) Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for leave to appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
- 02
Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the judgment contains errors of law and fact, and that there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion. The applicant submitted that the grounds for appeal are substantial and warrant consideration by a higher court.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the application for leave to appeal is without merit, as the judgment is correct in law and fact. They argued that there are no reasonable prospects of success and that the application should be dismissed with costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should only be granted where there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, after considering the grounds for leave to appeal and the arguments presented by both parties, there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed. Costs are awarded against the applicant.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Ruling
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case number: 54048/2016
Date:
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In the matter between:
MADIBENG
LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY APPLICANT
And
DDP
VALUERS FIRST
RESPONDENT
ACTIVA VALUATION SERVICES (PTY ) LTD SECOND
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT (APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
Pretorius J.
(1) In this leave to appeal I have carefully considered the grounds for the application for leave to appeal. I have considered all the arguments by both counsel and have read the judgment once more.
(2) I cannot find that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.
(3) In the result I make the following order:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGE
C PRETORIUS
Case number :54048/2016
Matter heard on :1 November 2017
For the Applicant :Adv T Motau SC
Instructed by :Gildenhuys Malatji Inc
For the Respondent :Adv BC Stoop SC
Instructed by :Kotze and Roux Attorneys Inc
Date of Judgment : 08 November 2017
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.