Sephton v Anglo Operations (PTY) LTD and Others (31271/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 90 (2 February 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 90
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Senyatsi M L
- Case number
- 31271/2020
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Senyatsi M L
- Case number
- 31271/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court, after considering the papers and submissions, found that the applicant had established that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the full court of the division. The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full court of the division. Costs will be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Leave to appeal the judgment is granted to the full Court of this Division.
- The costs will be the costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
John Ross Sephton
Applicant Counsel: Adv CB GarveyAnglo Operations (PTY) LTD
Respondent Counsel: Adv L Segeels-NcubeAnglo American Platinum (PTY) LTD
Respondent Counsel: Adv L Segeels-NcubeMmaputi Jeanny Mello
Respondent Counsel: Adv L Segeels-NcubePiteau Associates
Respondent Counsel: Adv L Segeels-Ncube03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 18 May 2022.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has established grounds for leave to appeal as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 02
Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the full court of the division.
- 03
Determination of costs for the leave to appeal application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion and that the appeal should be heard by the full court. Various grounds for appeal were raised, but were not repeated in this judgment.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application for leave to appeal, arguing that the applicant had not met the threshold required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act and that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, No. 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court, after considering the papers and submissions, found that the applicant had established that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the full court of the division. The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full court of the division. Costs will be costs in the appeal.
- Leave to appeal the judgment is granted to the full Court of this Division.
- The costs will be the costs in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA(GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO: 31271/2020
(1)REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2)OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)REVISED: YES/NO
In the matter between:
JOHN ROSS SEPHTON Applicant and
ANGLO OPERATIONS (PTY) LTD First Respondent
ANGLO AMERICAN PLATINUM (PTY) LTD
MMAPUTI
JEANNY MELLO
PITEAU
ASSOCIATES Second Respondent Third Respondent Fourth Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Leave to Appeal Application)
SENYATSI J:
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment handed down on 18 May 2022. The applicant has raised various grounds for appeal which will not be repeated in this judgment.
[2] Having considered the papers and the submissions made on behalf of the parties in this application for leave to appeal, I am of the view that the applicant has established that the appeal would succeed as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, No; 10 of 2013.
ORDER
[15] The order is made in the following terms:
(a) Leave to appeal the judgment is granted to the full Court of this Division;
(b) The costs will be the costs in the appeal,
SENYATSI M L
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION
Delivered: This judgment and order was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to Parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Case Lines. The date of the order is deemed to be the 2 February 2024.
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Adv CB Garvey
Instructed by:
Otto Krause Inc Attorneys
For the First to Third Respondent: Adv L Segeels-Ncube
Instructed by:
Webber Wentzel
Date Judgment Reserved:
3 November 2023
Date of Judgment:
2 February 2024
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.