Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v R1 Security Services CC (2021/43349) [2025] ZAGPJHC 94 (7 February 2025)
The court found that none of the grounds of appeal relied upon by the applicant would yield a different outcome in the contemplated appeal proceedings. The existence of a rescission order in the related Changing Tides matter does not constitute a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal, as the facts are...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 94
- Parties
- Applicant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa; Respondent: R1 Security Services CC
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2021/43349
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- L.T. Modiba
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Service of Process
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Applicant
R1 Security Services CC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of its rescission application.
- 2 Whether the existence of a rescission order in a related matter constitutes a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.
- 3 Whether there are conflicting judgments regarding service of summons on a driver at the applicant's premises.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that none of the grounds of appeal relied upon by the applicant would yield a different outcome in the contemplated appeal proceedings. The existence of a rescission order in the related Changing Tides matter does not constitute a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal, as the facts are materially distinguishable. Furthermore, the court clarified that there are no conflicting judgments regarding service of summons on a driver at the applicant's premises, as the Changing Tides judgment did not make such a finding. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2021/43349
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
7 FEBRUARY 2025
In the matter between:
PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant
and
R1 SECURITY SERVICES CC
Respondent
Judgment in the application for leave to appeal
MODIBA J
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal this court’s judgment and order of 21 November 2024, dismissing its application where it sought the rescission of an order this court granted by default on 22 February 2024. The respondent opposes the application.
[2] I have considered the grounds for appeal as set out in the applicant’s application for leave to appeal. I have also considered the written and oral submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant as well as oral submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent, guided by the provisions in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Court’s Act.[1] I find that none of the grounds of appeal relied on by the applicant will yield a different outcome in the contemplated appeal
proceedings.
[3] The fact that the applicant has successfully rescinded an order granted in Passenger Rail Services v Changing Tides[2] (Changing Tides) arising from the same cause of action is not a compelling reason for this court to grant leave to appeal because the facts in the two applications are materially distinguishable. Further, contrary to submissions made on behalf of the applicant, the court in Changing Tides did not find that service of summons on a driver at the applicant’s premises constitutes proper service.[3] Thus, there are no conflicting judgments in the two matters on this specific issue.
[4] In the premises, the application stands to be dismissed with costs. I therefore make the following order:
Order
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs.
JUDGE L.T. MODIBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
JOHANNESBURG
Appearances
For the Applicant:
P Ngutshana SC
Instructed by Leepile Attorneys Inc
For the Respondent: MP Van der Merwe SC
Instructed by Albert Hibbert Attorneys
Date of Hearing:
20 January 2025
Date of Judgment:
7 February 2025
MODE OF DELIVERY: This judgment is handed down electronically by transmission to the parties’ legal representatives by email, uploading on Caselines and release to SAFLII. The date and time for delivery is deemed to be 10:00am.
[1] Act 10 of 2013
[2] Passenger Rail Services v Changing Tides Unreported judgment by Kekana AJ handed down on 13 November 2024 under case number Gauteng Local Division Case No: 38292/2021.
[3] See paragraph 11 of the judgment in Changing Tides.