Davidson v Cough NO and Others (41962/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 731 (25 July 2023)

Editorial note: Certain information has been redacted from this judgment in compliance with the law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 41962/2021

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED.

25 July 2023

…………………….. ………………………...

Date ML TWALA

MAG.

In the matter between:

SEAN RIST DAVIDSON APPLICANT

And

BRENDA MEGAN COUGH N.O. FIRST RESPONDENT

(Cited in her capacity as the Executrix in

The estate late David Cough)

BRENDA MEGAN COUGH SECOND RESPONDENT

(Identity No: […])

STAND 1231 LEISURE BAY CLOSE

CORPORATION THIRD RESPONDENT

(Registration No: 1999/023523/23)

STAND 1232 LEISURE BAY CLOSE

CORPORATION FOURTH RESPONDENT

(Registration No: 1998/012901/23)

THE COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY COMMISSION FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to Parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Case Lines. The date of the judgment is deemed to be the 25^th of July 2023.

TWALA J

[1] For the sake of convenience, in this judgment I shall refer to the parties as they are referred to in the main application and in the judgment.

[2] The first and second respondents brought this application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this Court handed down electronically on the 20^th of December 2022. It is worth noting that the third and fourth respondents are not participating in this application for leave to appeal as they did not participate in the main application.

[3] It is a trite principle of our law that leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. (See section 17 (1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013).

[4] The grounds for the leave to appeal are succinctly stated in the notice of application for leave to appeal and I do not intend to repeat them in this judgment. Furthermore, I am grateful to both counsel for the parties for the submissions made at the hearing of this application for leave to appeal.

[5] I am satisfied that I have covered and considered all the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my judgment. I am therefore not persuaded by the respondents that there are reasonable prospects of success in this appeal. Put differently, I am of the view that there is no prospect that another Court would come to a different conclusion in this case. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal the judgment falls to be dismissed with costs.

[6] In the circumstances, the following order is made:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

______________

TWALA M L

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION

Date of Hearing: 20^th of July 2023

Date of Judgment: 25^th of July 2023

For the Applicant: Advocate S Meyer

Instructed by: Harris Billings Attorneys

Tel: 011 784 1910

megan@hbattorneys.co.za

For the Respondents: Advocate R Willis

Instructed by: Denzil Michael Fryer Attorneys

Tel: 011 675 5320

denzil@dmfa.co.za