In the matter between:

and

Koen, AJ

2. It is trite that for the application to succeed the Court must be satisfied that the applicant enjoys reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
3. Until the day the trial commenced the Defendant contended that it had contracted with either Little Swift Investments 338 (Pty) Ltd (Little Swift), or with Midnight Storm Investments 256 (Pty) Ltd, and not with the Plaintiff. Implicit in the defence put up is the fact that the Defendant did not know with whom it had contracted. It was only on the day the trial began that the Defendant pinned its colours, for the first time, to Little Swift's mast.
4. It was common cause that the Plaintiff had done the work required to earn the commission, and that at the time the contract was concluded, at least, it was of no moment to the Defendant with whom it had contracted.
5. With the exception of the draft agreement of mandate, which it is clear from the evidence was intended to serve only as a precedent, none of the documents which came into existence at the time of the conclusion of the contract suggested that Little Swift was a contracting party. On the contrary, the documents which were contemporaneous with the conclusion of the agreement indicate that the Defendant dealt with the Plaintiff at that time.

8. I am therefore driven to the conclusion that there are no reasonable prospects of an appeal court concluding that the plaintiffs claim should be dismissed.

9. In the result I make the following order: 

The application is dismissed with costs.