---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

CASE NO.: 2023-033422

(1)    REPORTABLE: NO

(2)    OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3)    REVISED: NO

Date:30 September 2024

E van der Schyff

 

In the matter between:

BIANCA TIANA BICCARD N.O.                                                     FIRST APPLICANT

 

ATHOLL DAVID VICTOR LIEBMAN N.O.                                 SECOND APPLICANT

 

JAQUELINE JUNE LIEBMAN GENTILE N.O.                              THIRD APPLICANT

 

and

 

JOHANNES OUPA NDWANDWE                                            FIRST RESPONDENT

 

THEMBA HENDRY MKHBELA                                           SECOND RESPONDENT

 

BRADLEY BRETT LIEBMAN N.O.                                          THIRD RESPONDENT

 

ANDREA LIEBMAN N.O.                                                     FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

JONATHAN HUGH STEPHENS                                               FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

ANGELENE POOLE N.O.                                                        SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

JANETTA EVELYN CARR N.O.                                         SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

PUMEZO DAVID N.O.                                                           EIGHTH RESPONDENT

 

MURRAY JAMES BARNETSON N.O.                                     NINTH RESPONDENT

 

KANABO GUGULETHU SKHOSANA N.O.                           TENTH RESPONDENT

 

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT,

PRETORIA                                                                     ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

THE COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY COMMISSION                                             TWELFTH RESPONDENT

 

CHRISTIANA BICCARD                                            THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

                      

JUDGMENT

Van der Schyff J

 

[1]             I handed down a written judgment in this matter on 19 August 2024. The applicants filed an application for leave to appeal, which was heard on 16 September 2024.

 

[2]             The applicants raised numerous grounds of appeal. They supplemented their grounds by filing a notice expressing that I was biased against them.

 

[3]             After considering the papers filed in the application, the judgment, and the grounds of appeal, I am of the opinion that the appeal does not have a reasonable prospect of success. The written judgment contains the reasons for the order handed down on 19 August 2024, and I need not elaborate on this.

 

[4]             The application for leave to appeal stands to be dismissed.

 

ORDER

In the result, the following order is granted:

1.     The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, costs of counsel on scale B.

 

 

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. As a courtesy gesture, it will be emailed to the parties/their legal representatives.

 

For the applicants:	J.L. Kaplan
With:	E. Dreyer
Instructed by:	Aaron Stanger & Associates
For the first and second respondents:	E.R. Venter
Instructed by:	JHS Attorneys
Date of the hearing:	16 September 2024
Date of judgment:	30 September 2024

---