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

                                                                                CASE NO:  35836/2017

In the matter between:

DIRECT REWARDS LIMITED (PTY) LTD                            First Applicant
SHAIK INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD                     Second Applicant
AFFORDABLE BENEFITS (PTY) LTD                                 Third Applicant
THE ACTIVATION AGENCY (PTY) LTD                              Fourth Applicant
SULEMAN SHAIK                                                                 Fifth Applicant

and

RIKASH SEETARAM                                                            Respondent

LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
Molahlehi, J
[1]            This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court made on 14 December 2018. The main issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of the rule nisi which was granted in their favour on 26 September 2016. The confirmation was refused and accordingly the rule nisi was discharged.   
[2]            The test to apply in considering an application of this nature is whether there is, as envisaged by the provisions of s 17(1) (a) (i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (the Act), reasonable prospects of success. 
[3]            The applicants in the present matter have raised several grounds of appeal which are set out in their application. The same are on record and thus it is not necessary to repeat in this judgment.  
[4]            The main case of the applicant was about the return of the laptop and the various documents contained therein. As appears from the judgment the respondent upon his resignation from his employ with the applicants took with him the laptop and the office keys. The order confirming the rule nisi on the return day would have been impossible to perform as at that point the laptop, the documents contained therein and the keys were already returned to the applicant. I am not persuaded that another court is likely to arrive at the decision different to that reached by this court in that regard.
[5]            I am further not persuaded that another court is likely to arrive at a different decision as concerning the approach adopted in the judgment concerning the reconsideration of urgency. The issue of reconsidering urgency arose in the context of determining the issue of costs. This issue is addressed in the judgment. I stand by the reasons proffered for the approach adopted in the judgment and have not been persuaded that another court is likely to arrive at a different conclusion than that reached by this court.
[6]            In the circumstances I find that the applicants have failed to make out a case for leave to appeal.

Order
[7]            In the premises the applicants’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. 

______________________
E Molahlehi 
Judge of the High Court,
Gauteng Local Division, 
Johannesburg

Representation: 
For the Applicant: Adv L Halgryn SC with Adv CT Vetter 
Instructed by: ABBA PARAK INCORPORATED
For the Respondent: Adv C Van der Merwe 
Instructed by: SENEKAL SIMMONDS INCORPORATED
Heard on: 21 February 2019
Delivered on: 01 March 2019