Van Dyk and Another v Rhodes (23121/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 610 (28 June 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 610
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 23121/2019
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 23121/2019
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The issues raised in the application are sufficiently substantial to warrant reconsideration by another court. However, the matter does not require the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal and is more appropriately dealt with by a Full Court of the Gauteng Division. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court, with costs to be determined in the appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to a Full Court of the Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
Orders
- The applicants are granted leave to appeal the judgment and order of Wright J of 4 June 2024.
- Leave is to a Full Court of the Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
- Costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Frederick Ernst Van Dyk
Applicant Counsel: Adv S McTurkChris Avril Stuart
Applicant Counsel: Adv S McTurkTeresa Mary Rhodes
Respondent Counsel: Adv JW Kloek03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 02
Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal or to a Full Court of the Gauteng Division.
- 03
Determination of costs for the appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that the judgment dismissing their main application contains errors of law and/or fact, and that there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion. They seek leave to appeal, arguing that the issues raised are substantial and merit reconsideration.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposes the application for leave to appeal, maintaining that the judgment was correct and that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The respondent submits that the application is without merit and should be dismissed with costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should be granted where there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
The appropriate forum for appeal is determined by the nature and complexity of the case and whether it warrants the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The issues raised in the application are sufficiently substantial to warrant reconsideration by another court. However, the matter does not require the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal and is more appropriately dealt with by a Full Court of the Gauteng Division. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court, with costs to be determined in the appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The court notes that the threshold for granting leave to appeal is not whether the appeal will succeed, but whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- The allocation of costs in the appeal will be determined by the appellate court.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to a Full Court of the Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
- The applicants are granted leave to appeal the judgment and order of Wright J of 4 June 2024.
- Leave is to a Full Court of the Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
- 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
Ruling
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case NO: 23121-2019
1. REPORTABLE: No
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
3.
REVISED
28 June 2024
In the matter between:
FREDERICK ERNST VAN DYK First Applicant
CHRIS
AVRIL STUART
Second Applicant
and
TERESA
MARY RHODES Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
[1] On 4 June 2024 I handed down a typed, signed judgment in the main application which I dismissed. The applicants now seek leave to appeal. In my view, the applicants have a reasonable prospect on appeal. The case does not need the attention of the SCA.
Order
[1] The applicants are granted leave to appeal the judgment and order of Wright J of 4 June 2024.
[2] Leave is to a Full Court of the Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
[3] Costs in the appeal.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD :28 June 2024
DELIVERED :28 June 2024
APPEARANCES :
Applicants Adv S McTurk
083 256 5561
adv.shaun@mcturk.co.za
Instructed By WA Opperman Attorneys
010 446 9962
Respondent Adv JW Kloek
082 600 5350
kloek@rsabar.com / kloek@mweb.co.za
Instructed By JJ Badenhorst & Associates Attorneys Inc
011 764 4745
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.