Swart v Heine and Others (3757/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 69 (13 February 2015)

Swart v Heine and Others (3757/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 69 (13 February 2015)

The court found that, given the existence of a conflicting judgment in the Local Division of the Gauteng Court and the possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion, leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The court further ordered that the costs of the application for leave to appeal, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel, are to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 69
Parties
Applicant: Riaan Anton Swart; Respondent: Charlene Heine & 4 Other Respondents
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Case Number
3757/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs of the application for leave to appeal, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel, are costs in the appeal.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Conflicting Judgments, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Conflicting Judgments 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riaan Anton Swart

Applicant

Charlene Heine & 4 Other Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a conflicting judgment in the Local Division justifies granting leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, given the existence of a conflicting judgment in the Local Division of the Gauteng Court and the possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion, leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The court further ordered that the costs of the application for leave to appeal, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel, are to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs of the application for leave to appeal, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel, are costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • Costs of the application for leave to appeal, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel, are costs in the appeal.