Mpambaniso v Davison and Another (Leave to Appeal) (39127/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 100 (23 February 2022)

Mpambaniso v Davison and Another (Leave to Appeal) (39127/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 100 (23 February 2022)

The court found that the applicant had expressly abandoned his alternative claim during trial, both in his evidence and through his concessions. The record left no doubt that the alternative claim was no longer pursued. On the merits, the court was not persuaded that there was a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the agreement with the first respondent. The threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act and interpreted in Mont Chevaux Trust, was not met. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 100
Parties
Applicant: Milile Mpambaniso; Respondent: James Davison; Respondent: Squirrel Benefit Administrators (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2022
Case Number
39127/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 13 December 2021.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Abandonment of Claim, Waiver by Conduct
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Abandonment of Claim Waiver by Conduct

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milile Mpambaniso

Applicant

James Davison

Respondent

Squirrel Benefit Administrators (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 13 December 2021.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant abandoned his alternative claim during trial.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant proved that his agreement was concluded with the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had expressly abandoned his alternative claim during trial, both in his evidence and through his concessions. The record left no doubt that the alternative claim was no longer pursued. On the merits, the court was not persuaded that there was a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the agreement with the first respondent. The threshold for granting leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act and interpreted in Mont Chevaux Trust, was not met. 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.