South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >>
2019 >>
[2019] ZAGPPHC 290
| Noteup
| LawCite
JR209 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Homeless People Housing Cooperative Limited and Others (24505/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 290 (11 July 2019)
Download original files |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES/NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: No
Case No. 24505/2019
In the matter between:
JR209 INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD FIRST APPLICANT
IDLEWILD FARM (PTY) LTD SECOND APPLICANT
IDLEWILD FARM CC (PTY) LTD THIRD APPLICANT
LIBERINI 112 CC FOURTH APPLICANT
HY-LINE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD FIFTH APPLICANT
MALUUVHA KWEKERY (PTY) LTD SIXTH APPLICANT
And
HOMELESS PEOPLE HOUSING COOPERATIVE FIRST RESPONDENT
LIMITED
THE EKHURULENI METROPOLITAN SECOND RESPONDENT
MUNICIPALITY
THE UNLAWFUL INVADERS OF PORTIONS 8, THIRD RESPONDENT
10 AND 39 OF THE FARM WITKOPPIES 393
EKHURULENI
THE GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF FOURTH RESPONDENT
AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
THE MINISTER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN FIFTH RESPONDENT
POLICE SERVICES
COLONEL RAKGALAKANE, STATION SIXTH RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER OF SAPS OLIFANTSFONTEIN
SAMUEL MANDLHA SONGO SEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MILLAR. A J
1. This is an application for leave to appeal by the first and seventh respondents against an order handed down on 26 April 2019.
2. The test for the granting of leave to appeal is set out in S 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act[1] as follows:
"Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that-
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard; including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;
3. This application sets out number of different grounds upon which it is alleged the court erred. Broadly these are firstly that the court postponed the application to hold the seventh respondent in contempt, secondly that the first respondent was held to be in contempt of an order granted on 19 April 2019, thirdly that credibility findings were made against the seventh respondent and lastly that paragraph 5.2 of the order in question may be interpreted to authorize the demolition of occupied structures.
4. I have considered the grounds upon which this application for leave to appeal has been brought, the reasons for granting the order of 26 April 2019 and the arguments advanced by the parties and am of the view that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is any compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted in this matter.
5. In the circumstances, I make the following order:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
A MILLAR
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD ON: 11 JULY 2019
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 11 JULY 2019
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS: ADV. WR DU PREEZ
(1ST & 7TH RESPONDENTS IN THE MAIN ACTION)
INSTRUCTED BY: LE ROUX & DU PLESSIS INC.
REFERENCE: MR G DU PLESSIS
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: ADV. P LOURENS
(1ST - 6TH APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION)
INSTRUCTED BY : ROESTOFF ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE : MR JJ ROESTOFF
[1] Act 10 of 2013