---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

CASE NO.: 815/2005

In the matter between:

JIC MINING SERVICES (PTY) LTD 1^ST APPLICANT

SPARAX TRADING 64 (PTY) LTD 2^ND APPLICANT

and

JOHAN LOUIS BECKER 1^ST RESPONDENT

PETRUS JACOBUS JORDAAN 2^ND RESPONDENT

PLATCHRO MINING SERVICES CC 3^RD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

LANDMAN J:

[1] On 21 November 2005 I handed down an order in this matter. I indicated that reasons would be supplied on application. Reasons were requested on 22 November and delivered on 5 January 2006. The reasons were subsequently edited and made available to the parties.

[2] In the meantime the first and second respondent’s filed an application for leave to appeal against the whole of my judgment.

[3] The grounds upon which leave is sought are set out in the application. Heads of arguments were filed on behalf of the applicants. The application for leave to appeal was set down for hearing on 10 March 2006 not by the first two respondents but by the applicants. On the day before the hearing the first and second respondent supplemented their grounds of appeal. These grounds were, in the main, not arguments which had been previously made. Heads of argument were not filed but were handed in during argument. Mr H Lever SC, who appeared for the applicants, did not object and I allowed the matter to proceed in view of the applicants’ contention that the first and second respondents are delaying the matter so that the period of restraint will expire before an order in the main application is made.

[4] Mr A G South, who appeared for the respondents, submitted that the order for substitution is an absurd one. I do not agree with this submission but there is a reasonable possibility that had the submissions made in the course of the application for leave to appeal been made in the first instance the result may have been different.

[5] In the result there is a reasonable possibility that another court may reasonably come to a different conclusion on an issue which in my view is properly appealable.

[6] I do not intend to make costs, costs in the appeal as is usual. The costs of this application are reserved for the court of appeal.

[7] I make the following order:

1. The respondents in the main application are granted leave to appeal against my judgment to the full bench of this Division.

2. Costs of this application for leave to appeal are reserved for the court of appeal.

_______________

A A LANDMAN

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Appearances:

For The Applicant : Adv South

For The Respondent : Adv H Lever SC

Attorneys for the Applicant : Minchin & Kelly

Attorneys for the 1^st & 2^nd Respondents : Nienaber & Wissing

Date of Hearing : 10 March 2006

Date of Judgment : 6 April 2006

---