Pillay and Another v Muthray and Associates Incorporated and Others (Leave to Appeal) (081393/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1249 (5 December 2024)

Pillay and Another v Muthray and Associates Incorporated and Others (Leave to Appeal) (081393/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1249 (5 December 2024)

The court considered the grounds for appeal and the judgment delivered on 17 September 2024. After reviewing the record and the arguments presented, the judge found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Furthermore, no compelling reason was advanced to justify the hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1249
Parties
Applicant: Vigneshvarie Pillay; Applicant: Thomson Wilks Incorporated; Respondent: Muthray and Associates Incorporated; Respondent: Kineil Muthray; Respondent: ABSA BANK Ltd; Respondent: Keshan Pillay
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2024
Case Number
081393/2024
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 17 September 2024.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on scale A.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs Award

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vigneshvarie Pillay

Applicant

Thomson Wilks Incorporated

Applicant

Muthray and Associates Incorporated

Respondent

Kineil Muthray

Respondent

ABSA BANK Ltd

Respondent

Keshan Pillay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 17 September 2024.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court considered the grounds for appeal and the judgment delivered on 17 September 2024. After reviewing the record and the arguments presented, the judge found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Furthermore, no compelling reason was advanced to justify the hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on scale A.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal by the first and second applicants is dismissed with costs on scale A.