Sibiya v South African Women in Mining Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (0028804/17) [2019] ZAGPJHC 57 (1 March 2019)
The court found that, upon consideration of the grounds of appeal, written submissions, and the reasons for the previous decision, there are reasonable prospects that the appeal court may reach a different conclusion regarding the existence of a valid contract and the effect of Makume J's order. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] ZAGPJHC 57
- Parties
- Applicant: Sibiya Tembisa Belinda; Respondent: South African Women in Mining Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Maphanzela Mantombi Gloria; Respondent: Mngomezulu Simangele Ester Annamaria; Respondent: Langeni Noluthando; Respondent: Qabaka Nomaci
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 0028804/17
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Declaratory Order Application
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Judges
- E Molahlehi
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Declaratory Interdict, Share Subscription, Contract Formation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sibiya Tembisa Belinda
Applicant
South African Women in Mining Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Maphanzela Mantombi Gloria
Respondent
Mngomezulu Simangele Ester Annamaria
Respondent
Langeni Noluthando
Respondent
Qabaka Nomaci
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Declaratory Order Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of her application for a declaratory order.
- 2 Whether a valid contract for share subscription was concluded between the applicant and the first respondent.
- 3 Whether the order of Makume J on 15 November 2016 affects the applicant's entitlement to a share certificate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, upon consideration of the grounds of appeal, written submissions, and the reasons for the previous decision, there are reasonable prospects that the appeal court may reach a different conclusion regarding the existence of a valid contract and the effect of Makume J's order. The court acknowledged that another court could, on the conspectus of all material before it, arrive at a different decision. Accordingly, the applicant made out a case for leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the full bench of this court is granted.
- Costs to be in the appeal.
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: 0028804/17
In the matter between:
SIBIYA TEMBISA BELINDA Applicant
And
THE SOUTH AFRICAN WOMEN IN
MINING HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD First
Respondent
MAPHANZELA, MANTOMBI GLORIA Second
Respondent
MNGOMEZULU SIMANGELE ESTER ANNAMARIA Third
Respondent
LANGENI NOLUTHANDO Fourth
Respondent
QABAKA NOMACI Fifth
Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
Molahlehi J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court made on 23 August 2018 in terms of which the applicant’s
application for a declaratory order was dismissed with costs. The applicant sought a declaratory interdict that she subscribed for shares in the first respondent on 5 May 2005.
[2] In addition to the contention of the applicant as to what happened between the parties in 2005, the dispute arose in the context where Makume J on 15 November 2016 made the order that the applicant acquired the right to be issued with a share certificate.
[3] In determining whether leave to appeal should be granted or refused I am guided by the test set out in s 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 which requires that leave to appeal should be granted where there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
[4] It is erroneously recorded in the judgment that Makume J’s order was made on the 22 November 2016. The correct date is 15 November 2016.
[5] The applicant has raised several grounds of appeal in her application which is on record and thus need no repeat in this judgment. The application was opposed by the respondents.
[6] In considering this application I have taken into account the grounds of appeal, written submissions made by both parties and the reasons for the decision by this court. It seems to me that there are reasonable prospects that the appeal court is likely to arrive at a decision different to that of this court when regard is had to the finding that a valid contract was concluded by the parties and the order of Makume J. In other words another court could arrive at a different conclusion if the conspectus of all material which served before this court was considered.
[7] In the circumstances I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for leave to appeal.
Order
[8] In the premises leave to appeal to the full bench of this court is granted with costs to be in the appeal.
E Molahlehi
Judge of the High Court;
Johannesburg.
Representation:
For the Applicant: Adv D B Ntsbeza SC with Adv T Mosiliki
Instructed by: Nyapotse Incorporated
For the Respondent: Adv D Mpufu SC with
Instructed by: Mabuza Attorneys.
Heard on: 15 February 2019
Delivered: 01 March 2019