IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
 GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG 

(1)	REPORTABLE: NO 		 
(2)	OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES:	NO
(3)	REVISED 
29  March  2018__            ___________________
DATE		          SIGNATURE	
							Case number:   2017/44930

In the matter between:
WILLEM JOHANNES KOEKEMOER				First Applicant
CHRISTOPHER KOITSIOE					Second Applicant
JOSEPH KUBEKA							Third Applicant
RONALD NKUNA 							Fourth Applicant
JOSEPH NKUNA							Fifth Applicant
HILDA MATLISANE 						Sixth Applicant
ADRI MAREE 							Seventh Applicant
THAPELE TSHOTETSI 						Eighth Applicant
WANDA KOEKEMOER						Ninth Applicant
ELLIE MSEBE 							Tenth Applicant
MARIO MTHWANI 							Eleventh Applicant
ROBERT DUMANYANE 						Twelfth Applicant
CHANTEL SMOOG 						Thirteenth Applicant
REVOLUTION NAWANYA					Fourteenth Applicant 
WITNESS SIHLANGU 
AND 
MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS	First Respondent
THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE	Second Respondent
THE SOUTH AFRICAN ARMY 					Third Respondent 
 THE OFFICER COMMANDING ARMY 				Fourth Respondent
SUPPORT BASE JOHANNESBURG (LENASIA)		Fifth Respondent
THE OFFICER COMMANDINGMARIEVALE 
ENGENEERING REGIMENT					Sixth Respondent
THE OFFICER COMMANDING DUNNOTTAR 
MILITARY BASE 							Seventh Respondent 
JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL
Molahlehi J  
[1]	This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court made on 16 February 2018 in terms of which the rule nisi issued by Berger AJ was confirmed.  
[2]	The applicants have in their notice for leave to appeal raised several grounds for appeal. In brief their contention is that the court erred in:
a.	not considering that there were no records indicating that the respondents have lease agreement/s to occupy the premises. 
b.	in refusing the application for condonation which was made from the bar, they were denied a fair hearing and access to court in terms of  s 34 and  s 36 of the Constitution.
c.	confirming the rule nisi despite their application in terms of rule 35 (12) of the Rules which was handed in court on 29 January 2018. 
[3]	As concerning the law the applicants have relied on various judgments concerning their challenge of the judgment. The essence of those decisions relate to the principles governing access to the court/s and affording a litigant a fair hearing.  The other authorities relate to condonation made from the bar and concern the extension of the time frames as provided for in the rules. 
[4]	The test to apply in considering leave to appeal is governed by s 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, which requires the applicant to convince the court that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or that there were other compelling reasons why the appeal would be heard. 
[5]	In applying the above test of leave to appeal I considered the submissions made by both parties, the grounds for leave to appeal and all the authorities relied upon by the applicants including my judgment. The authorities relied upon by the applicants do not assist their case in that they are distinguishable from the facts of the present matter and its circumstances. For instance as alluded to earlier the issue in this matter related to non-compliance with the time frames set out in a court order as opposed to that provided for in the rules. There can be no doubt, in my view, that these are two distinct situation to which a different consideration has to apply when considering whether to allow an application for condonation from the bar. In this respect the non-compliance with the order of the court is much more serious than that of the rules. In any case, even if the two situations were to be treated as needing equal consideration, the applicants failed to make out a case as to why no formal application was made for the condonation for non-compliance with the time frame for filing their answering affidavit as set out in the rules. 
[6]	In as far as all the other issues raised by the applicants, there is no need to delve into them as they are fully addressed in my judgment. It accordingly follows from this discussion that I have not been persuaded that there are prospects that another court is likely to arrive at a decision different to that reached by this court. In the circumstances the applicants’ application for leave to appeal stands to fail. 
Order 
[7]	In the premises the applicants’ application for leave for appeal the decision of this court made on 16 February 2018 is dismissed with costs. 

  										
E Molahlehi 
							Judge of the High Court; 
Johannesburg. 

Representation: 
For the Applicants: Adv. J Van Garderen 
Instructed by: Chris Liebenberg Attorneys
For the Respondents: Adv. R Kwinda
Instructed by: The State Attorney
Heard on:  22 March 2018
Delivered on: 29 March 2018