In the matter between 

 and

JUDGMENT

(Application for Leave to Appeal)

BOZALEK J

The Applicant in this ruling seeks leave to appeal against my judgment handed down on the 8 September 2008, in fact, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The grounds of the proposed appeal are set out in the notice headed, "Amended Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal" which is dated the 20 October 2008 and which I shall refer to
Those grounds relate exclusively to what I found was the sole issue in this matter, namely the meaning and scope of the servitude registered in favour of the applicant over respondents' property. Most of the arguments and points made by Mr Schippers on behalf of the applicant in arguing for leave have been dealt with in my judgment. To the extent that he raised any new points, these have not caused me to reconsider the correctness of the view which \ took of the matter.

I am not persuaded, however, that it is appropriate for the appeal to go in the first place to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Although there are few, if any, material factual disputes in this matter, the law component amounts to no more than the proper interpretation of the terms of the servitude.

In these circumstances, I can see no reason why the appeal should not be dealt with by a full court of this Division.

There remains one further point. Mr Borgstrom, for the Respondent, who opposed the granting of leave, asked that if leave be granted, it be limited to the grounds advanced in Applicant's notice of application or its amended notice. By way of example, he mentioned that the question of issue estoppel initially raised by Applicant but not pursued at the hearing should not be one upon which the Applicant or Appellant could rely in the appeal.

The following order is made:
1.	Applicant is granted leave to appeal the decision to the full bench of this court on the grounds advanced in its amended notice of application for leave to appeal.
2.	The costs of this application will be costs in the appeal.