Zoviflo (Pty) Ltd v Prokas and Others (010253/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1031 (15 September 2023)

Zoviflo (Pty) Ltd v Prokas and Others (010253/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1031 (15 September 2023)

The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been considered in the main judgment. The judge was not persuaded that there are reasonable prospects of success or that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1031
Parties
Applicant: Zoviflo (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Haralambos Prokas; Respondent: Joalette Prokas; Respondent: Fotini Prokas (in their capacities as trustees of the Prinia Heritage Trust (IT 952/12)); Respondent: Prinia Investment Capital (Pty) Limited; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Case Number
010253/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Twala M L
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoviflo (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Haralambos Prokas

Respondent

Joalette Prokas

Respondent

Fotini Prokas (in their capacities as trustees of the Prinia Heritage Trust (IT 952/12))

Respondent

Prinia Investment Capital (Pty) Limited

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold of reasonable prospects of success.
  2. 2 Whether there is any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicants for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been considered in the main judgment. The judge was not persuaded that there are reasonable prospects of success or that another court would reach a different conclusion. 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.