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 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th 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 1st Applicant: In Person
On Behalf of the 4th, 7th, 8th,
9th and 11th 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