---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

Case No: 16558/2013

Date heard: 03 September 2014

Date of judgment: 03 September 2014

In the matter between:

HOLDSWORTH, JOHN CHARLES......................................................................................First Applicant

CLINE, RAEL IAN...............................................................................................................Second Applicant

RANGILA, MOHAMMED....................................................................................................Third Applicant

ONI, OPEYEMI OLUWASEUN.........................................................................................Fourth Applicant

JOHNSON, BRIAN RICHARD..............................................................................................Fifth Applicant

FRANCESCO, DARRYN........................................................................................................Sixth Applicant

CHENGALROYEN, JARRYD JERMAINE........................................................................Seven Applicant

MOODLEY, THIRESH...........................................................................................................Eight Applicant

FRANCESCO, DONOVAN GILYAN...................................................................................Ninth Applicant

NEIMAN, VICTOR................................................................................................................Tenth Applicant

JOVANOVIC, DAMJAM..................................................................................................Eleventh Applicant

GROBLER, LOUIS.............................................................................................................Twelfth Applicant

and

REUNERT LIMITED.....................................................................................................................Respondent

In re:

REUNERT LIMITED........................................................................................................................Applicant

and

HOLDSWORTH, JOHN CHARLES..................................................................................First Respondent

CLINE, RAEL IAN............................................................................................................Second Respondent

RANGILA, MOHAMMED.................................................................................................Third Respondent

ONI, OPEYEMI OLUWASEUN......................................................................................Fourth Respondent

JOHNSON, BRIAN RICHARD...........................................................................................Fifth Respondent

FRANCESCO, DARRYN.....................................................................................................Sixth Respondent

CHENGALROYEN, JARRYD JERMAINE....................................................................Seven Respondent

MOODLEY, THIRESH.......................................................................................................Eight Respondent

FRANCESCO, DONOVAN GILYAN................................................................................Ninth Respondent

NEIMAN, VICTOR.............................................................................................................Tenth Respondent

JOVANOVIC, DAMJAM ….........................................................................................Eleventh Respondent

GROBLER, LOUIS..........................................................................................................Twelfth Respondent

LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT

A.M.L. PHATUDI J:

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal. The first applicant is not legally represented and appears in person. The 4^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th and 11^th Applicants are legally represented by Adv. Hagekom. The Respondent is legally represented by Adv. Bosman.

[2] This application for leave to appeal is only in respect of the applicants mentioned in paragraph [1] above. The applicants seek leave to appeal only against the judgment in respect of the refusal of the condonation application and related orders handed down on 01 October 2013.

[3] After having read the application for leave to appeal, having heard counsel and having considered the submissions made, I am of the view that another court may come to a different conclusion.

As a result, I make the following order:

Order:

1. Leave to appeal is hereby granted to the full bench of this division

2. Costs of this application shall be cost in the appeal.

A.M.L. Phatudi

Judge of the High Court

On Behalf of the 1^st Applicant: In Person

On Behalf of the 4^th, 7^th, 8^th,

9^th and 11^th Applicants: Adv. Hagekom

On Behalf of the Respondent: Norton Rose Fulbright SA

C/O Van Der Merwe Du Toit Inc

Brooklyn Place

CNR Bronkhorst & Dey Str

Brooklyn

Pretoria

Adv. P. Bosman

---