Rabie v Ernst & Young Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd (56029/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 72 (21 February 2020)

Rabie v Ernst & Young Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd (56029/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 72 (21 February 2020)

The court found that the interim interdict order was not final in effect, did not definitively determine the rights of the parties, and did not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The pending rescission application would soon resolve the substantive dispute, and the interim order merely preserved the status quo. The court applied the principles from Zweni and Cipla Agrimed, concluding that the order was interlocutory and not appealable. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for leave to appeal. The costs order was upheld as the applicant was the unsuccessful party and no valid challenge was presented. The urgency...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 72
Parties
Applicant: Virgil Humphrey Rabie; Respondent: Ernst & Young Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Case Number
56029/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Interdict Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Appealability of Orders, Costs Award, Urgency Rule 6 12
Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Appealability of Orders Costs Award Urgency Rule 6 12

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Virgil Humphrey Rabie

Applicant

Ernst & Young Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Interdict Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim interdict order granted by the court is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the applicant was correctly made.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interim interdict order was not final in effect, did not definitively determine the rights of the parties, and did not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The pending rescission application would soon resolve the substantive dispute, and the interim order merely preserved the status quo. The court applied the principles from Zweni and Cipla Agrimed, concluding that the order was interlocutory and not appealable. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for leave to appeal. The costs order was upheld as the applicant was the unsuccessful party and no valid challenge was presented. The urgency...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal the order dated 24 October 2019 is dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of counsel.