REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
          
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

                                                                                CASE NO:

(1)	REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2)	OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)	REVISED. 

         ……………………..		………………………...
                   DATE			        SIGNATURE

  09853/2015

In the matter between:

A MELAMED FINANCE (PTY) LTD (in liquidation)	     Respondent/Plaintiff

and

HIRSCHOWITZ, SANDRA PHYLLIS                                 Applicant/Defendant
______________________________________________________________ 

JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

MAKUME, J:

[1]	On the 19th September 2016 I dismissed the Applicant’s application for leave to amend her plea in certain respects. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against that order of dismissal.

[2]	In issue at that stage was whether or not the intended amendment constituted a withdrawal of an admission.

[3]	In my judgment I found that indeed the amendment if allowed will result in withdrawal of a statement of fact which had become common cause as it had been admitted in the plea. I concluded that the application to amend was mala fide and will prejudice the Respondent’s case.  I still stand by that conclusion.

[4]	The test to be applied in deciding on an application for leave to appeal is set out in section 17(1) (a)-(c).  A court must be satisfied and hold the opinion that there are reasonable prospects of success of the appeal itself before granting leave.

[5]	In this application nothing knew has been placed before me to persuade me that there are reasonable prospects of success should I refer this application to amend to the full bench of this division.

[6]	In this matter summons with detailed particulars of claim was issued during March 2015.  The plea was delivered during September 2015 some five months later. The notice to amend paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the plea was given on the 30th May 2016 almost a year and two months after the action was instituted.  It is in my view inconceivable that it took a whole year for the applicant to realise that she had not given her attorney and counsel correct instructions on the plea.
[7]	The Applicant has failed to persuade me that there are reasonable prospects of success of the appeal.  Accordingly the application must fail.

ORDER

[8]
	8.1	The application for leave to appeal is refused.

	8.2	The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

DATED at JOHANNESBURG on this the 3rd day of FEBRUARY 2017.

			       __________________________________________
						   M A MAKUME
			       JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
			         GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

DATE OF HEARING			2nd FEBRUARY 2017

DATE OF JUDGMENT			      FEBRUARY 2017

FOR APPLICANT				ADV PRETORIUS

INSTRUCTED BY				STAN FANAROFF & ASSOCIATES
						107 Oxford Road
						Rosebank, Johannesburg
						Tel:  (011) 880 2091
						Ref:  H40.7/Ms S Henning/Yvonne

FOR RESPONDENT			ADV WILSON

INSTRUCTED BY				BROOKS & BRAADTVEDT INC
						203 Jan Smuts Avenue
						Parktown North
						Johannesburg
						Tel:  (011) 788 7707
						Ref:  Mr A Brooks/1967