IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between: 

And
COMMISIONER OF SOUTH AFRICAN 

JUDGMENT 
(Application for Leave to Appeal)

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against my entire judgment and orders delivered on 5 February 2008. The grounds upon which leave is sought can be summarised as follows:

1.	
2.	The magistrate's failure to hear the applicant and not requiring the presentation of all available facts to him for consideration prior to the issue of the warrant;
3.	The Court's failure to find that the grounds upon which the applicant sought to oppose the application for the warrant constituted essential facts upon which the magistrate ought to have considered before deciding that reasonable existed for the issue of the warrant;
4.	The magistrate had no reasonable grounds for believing that an act of dealing in counterfeit goods had taken place or was taking place or is likely to take place given the material placed before him;
5.	Whether the applicant infringed any rights of the fourth respondent contemplated in the Copyright Act 98 of 1 978.

[5] The magistrate's belief was based on the information placed before him in the form of the affidavit of Erik Olsen. It was clear from the affidavits of Olsen and Battiston that the fourth respondent is the hotder of the intellectual property rights, which had been violated by the goods in respect of which the warrant was sought. There was no evidence that the person from whom the applicant obtained the goods had authority to use the fourth respondent's copyright which subsisted in the drawing of the shoe.

[7] In the circumstances I am not persuaded that the application for leave to appeal has reasonable prospects of success and I therefore dismiss the application, with costs.