IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 70335/2011
DATE: 10 AUGUST 2014
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES

In the matter between:
FOUNTAINHEAD PROPERTY TRUST................................................1ST PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
ATTFUND LIMITED................................................................................2nd PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT
and
GOSPEL DIRECT (PTY) LTD T/A
GOSPEL DIRECT.......................................................................................1st DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
LUKAS HERMANUS CARELSEN...........................................................2nd DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
CORAM EBERSOHN AJ
HEARD ON 1 AUGUST 2014
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN ON 11 AUGUST 2014
JUDGMENT APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL 
EBERSOHN AJ:
[1] To avoid confusion the parties will be referred to by name.
[2] Fountainhead Propert Trust/Attfund Limited (Fountainhead”) issued summons against Gospel Direct (Pt) Ltd t/a Gospel Direct/Lukas Hermanus Carelsen (“Gospel Direct”) wherein it claimed three amounts from the defendants. Firstly, R93 066,75 being for rent; secondly R93964,50 costs to restore the perorty to a good condition and, thirdly, R88 608,24 being in respect of future loss of rental. After hearing evidene the court granted judgment regarding the first claim in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the two other claims.
[3] The defendants applied for leave to appeal against the judgment regarding the first claim in which judgment was garanted againstg them and the plaintiffs applied for leave to appeal with regard to the two claims against the defendants which were dismissed b the court.
[4] The defendants applied for condonation regarding the later filing of th application forleave to appeal. The plaintiffs similarly also applied for condonation for the late filing of their application for leave to appeal. The parties have agreed not to oppose the said applications for condonation and condonationwill be granted.
[5] With regard to the application for leave to appeal against the first clai in which judgment was granted against it ,it may be that there was a misunderstanding between the court and the parties and the court will grant leave to appeal. There may be a possibility that another court may come to another decision regarding the second and third claims and leave to appeal will be granted to the plaintiff as far as the two claims are concerned.
[6] The following order is made:
1. The application for condonation by the plaintiffs is granted and the application for condonation by the defendants is granted, the costs of both is reserved for determination by the Full Bench.
2. Leave to appeal to the Full Bench against the dismissal of the second and third claims against the defendants is granted to the plaintiffs.
3. Leave to appeal to the Full Bench against the granting of the first claim against it is granted to the defendants.
4. The costs of the applications for leave to appeal is reserved for determination by the FullBench.
P.Z. EBERSOHN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
The plaintiffs’ counsel: Adv. G.T. AWAKOUMIDES
The plaintiffs’ attorneys: Halse, Havemann &  Lloyd
Ref. Mnr. Van Stade/Cindy 
Tel. 012 348 5534
The defendants’ counsel: Adv. T. L. JACOBS
The defendants’ attorneys: Mark Efstratiou Inc.
TEL. 012 809 4301 
REF. Mr. Efstratiou/E 10880