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

							                     CASE NO: 44541/2017

DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1)	  REPORTABLE: NO
(2)	 OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)	 REVISED : 

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

In the matter between:

DUIKER KLAAS MALETSE					 Appellant

and

PRASA                                               		                   Respondent

	
JUDGMENT

SENYATSI J:

 [1]	The Applicant applies for leave to appeal against the judgment I handed down on 19 September 2019 dismissing the Applicant’s claim with costs.
	 
 [2]	The Applicant has raised a number of grounds of appeal which I will not repeat in this Judgment.
	 
 [3]	In my judgment, after the assessment of the evidence by both parties, it was common cause that the versions of the parties evidence were mutually exclusive. The case was determined on the credibility of each witness. My conclusion was that the applicant was not credible and was less candid in his testimony. Consequently his version was found to have been more improbable and was rejected.

 [4]	The test for granting of leave to appeal is codified in section 17 (1) (a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 which reads as follows:

“[1] Leave to appeal may be given where the Judge or Judges concerned
      are of the opinion that-
(a)	(i) the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success; or
(b)	There is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under, consideration ” 

 [5]	The bar for the success of leave to appeal has been raised higher in terms of 
the new Act. The Applicant	 is required to show that the appeal “would” have reasonable prospects of success. This is now trite law.

[6]	In the instant case, I find that the grounds raised for appeal are so widely expressed and therefore insufficient to comply with the requirements of section 17 of the Act.

 [7]	It follows in my respectful view that that the application for leave to appeal must fail.

ORDER:

	The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs

	 

                                                                 __________________________________ 
                                                                                                 SENYATSI ML
                                                                         Judge of the High Court of South Africa
                                                                          Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

Date leave to appeal application heard: 26 February 2020
Date of Judgment:       April 2020
Appellants Counsel: Adv. Ramaili
Instructed by: B Mzamo Incorporated
Respondents Counsel:  Adv. Langa 
Instructed by: Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa