South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 1249

| Noteup | LawCite

Pillay and Another v Muthray and Associates Incorporated and Others (Leave to Appeal) (081393/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1249 (5 December 2024)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

CASE NO.:081393/2024

(1)    REPORTABLE: NO

(2)    OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3)    REVISED: NO

Date: 5 December 2024

E van der Schyff

 

In the application for leave to appeal between:

 

Vigneshvarie Pillay                                                                                          First Applicant

 

Thomson Wilks Incorporated                                                                      Second Applicant

 

and

 

Muthray and Associates Incorporated                                                         First Respondent

 

Kineil Muthray                                                                                        Second Respondent

 

ABSA BANK Ltd                                                                                        Third Respondent

 

Keshan Pillay                                                                                           Fourth Respondent


JUDGMENT


Van der Schyff J

[1]             The applicants in this application for leave to appeal were the second and third respondents in the main application. The parties are referred to as cited in this application for leave to appeal. The applicants seek leave to appeal against the judgment and order delivered on 17 September 2024.

 

[2]             I have considered the grounds for appeal noted in the application for leave to appeal. I handed down a written judgment in the matter concerned that set out the reasons for my decision. After having reflected on the papers filed of record, the judgment and order handed down, and the grounds for appeal, I am not of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success if leave is granted. There is no other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

 

ORDER

In the result, the following order is granted:

1.     The application for leave to appeal by the first and second applicants (the second and third respondents in the main application) is dismissed with costs on scale A.

 

E van der Schyff

Judge of the High Court

 

Delivered:  This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.

 

For the first and second applicants:

Adv. C. Woodrow

Instructed by:

Thomson Wilk Incorporated

For the first and second respondents:

Adv. E. de Lange

Instructed by:

Muthray and Associates

Date of the hearing:

20 November 2024

Date of judgment:

5 December 2024