Nel N.O. and Others v Marx N.O. and Another (4679/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 180 (2 November 2017)

Nel N.O. and Others v Marx N.O. and Another (4679/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 180 (2 November 2017)

After considering the grounds for leave to appeal, the judgment, and oral submissions, the court found no measure of certainty that another court would reach a different conclusion. The applicants failed to meet the raised threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, which requires more than a mere possibility of success. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 180
Parties
Applicant: Jan Joachim Nel N.O.; Applicant: Joyce Nel N.O.; Applicant: Hannes Lotter N.O.; Applicant: Cornelius Johannes Herculas van Tonder t/a NJ Konsultante; Respondent: Jacobus Marx N.O.; Respondent: Johanet Helena Marx N.O.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2017
Case Number
4679/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Reinders
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act Section 17, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act Section 17 Prospects of Success

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Joachim Nel N.O.

Applicant

Joyce Nel N.O.

Applicant

Hannes Lotter N.O.

Applicant

Cornelius Johannes Herculas van Tonder t/a NJ Konsultante

Applicant

Jacobus Marx N.O.

Respondent

Johanet Helena Marx N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in its reasoning or failed to exercise judicial discretion correctly.

Ratio Decidendi

After considering the grounds for leave to appeal, the judgment, and oral submissions, the court found no measure of certainty that another court would reach a different conclusion. The applicants failed to meet the raised threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, which requires more than a mere possibility of success. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.