Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Shirbeza v Tobitrix (Pty) Ltd (2021/39063) [2025] ZAGPJHC 721 (1 July 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been considered in the original judgment. The applicant failed to persuade the court that there are reasonable prospects of success or that another court would reach a different conclusion. There was no compelling reason presented for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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

02

Material facts

Parties

Sultan Zeberga Shirbeza

Applicant Counsel: AM Jardine

Tobitrix (Pty) Ltd

Respondent Counsel: T Ndaba

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contended that the judgment and order handed down on 27 February 2025 were incorrect and that there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The grounds for leave to appeal were set out in the notice of application, and the applicant argued that these grounds justify the granting of leave to appeal.
Respondent
The respondent opposed the application, submitting that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The respondent argued that the issues raised had already been fully considered in the original judgment and that there is no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013

    Leave to appeal may only be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or if there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, including conflicting judgments.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been considered in the original judgment. The applicant failed to persuade the court that there are reasonable prospects of success or that another court would reach a different conclusion. There was no compelling reason presented for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Obiter and limits

  • The court expressed gratitude to counsel for their concise heads of argument and submissions, which assisted in determining the application.
  • The matter was decided on the papers without an oral hearing, in accordance with directives issued during the National State of Disaster.

Court disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

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

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.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2025] ZAGPJHC 721

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 2021/39063

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED.

01/07/25

In the matter between:

SULTAN

ZEBERGA SHIRBEZA

APPLICANT

And

TOBITRIX (PTY)

LTD

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

TWALA J

[1] It is worth mentioning at the outset that this Court directed that this case be determined on the papers without an oral hearing, as provided for in the Gauteng Division Consolidated Directives; re Court Operations during the National State of Disaster issued by the Judge President of this Division on the 18th of September 2020.

[2] The applicant brought this application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this Court handed down electronically on 27 February 2025. The application is opposed by the respondents.

[3] At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to counsel for the parties for the concise heads of argument and submissions made therein which have been helpful in determining the issues in this application.

[4] It is a trite principle of our law that leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.[1]

[5] The grounds for the leave to appeal are succinctly stated in the notice of application for leave to appeal and I do not intend to repeat them in this judgment.

[6] I am satisfied that I have covered and considered all the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my judgment. I am therefore not persuaded by the applicant that there are reasonable prospects of success in this appeal. Put differently, I am of the view that there is no prospect that another Court would come to a different conclusion in this case. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal the judgment falls to be dismissed.

[7] In the result, the following order is made:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

TWALA

M L

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG

DIVISION JOHANNESBURG

For the Plaintiff: Advocate AM Jardine

Instructed by:

Burnett Attorneys & Notaries

Tel: 012 941 2260

emma@burnett-law.co.za

For the Defendant: Advocate T Ndaba

Instructed by:

Sebola Nchupetsang Sebola Inc

Tel: 011 568 7100

londeka@snsinc.co.za

Date of Hearing: Decided on the papers

Date of Judgment: 01 July 2025

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 01 July 2025.

[1] See section 17 (1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.