Gravitate Multi Video Content (Pty) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (2021/ 27241) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1525 (4 March 2024)


2


REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA







IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Shape1

Reportable: No

Of Interest to other Judges: No


4 March 2024 Vally J

Case Number: 2021/ 27241







In the matter between:

GRAVITATE MULTI VIDEO CONTENT (PTY) LTD First Applicant

JUSTICE KUDUMELA N.O. Second Applicant

and


ABSA BANK LTD Respondent

______________________­­­­_____________________________________________



JUDGMENT

___________________________________________________________________

Vally J

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) against a judgment and order I issued on 23 November 2023. The applicants herein were the first and second respondents in the main application. The judgment in the matter is comprehensive. It dealt with every relevant contention raised by them at that hearing. Nevertheless, they are aggrieved by the judgment and the order and asked that they be given an opportunity to ventilate their case in the SCA. They say that the judgment is beset by a number of misdirections which call for the attention of the SCA. The alleged misdirections are, according to them, a failure to attend to the issue of the ESD agreement between the first applicant and the respondent and more importantly a failure to find in their favour. In my judgment the application constitutes a repetition of all the arguments they advanced at the main hearing. The relevant ones, as I say above, have been comprehensively dealt with in the judgment.

[2] Leave to appeal should not be granted simply because an applicant for leave complains that their contentions were rejected. There must be cogent substantive grounds raised that show that those contentions were correct either in fact or in law, and that their rejection was wrong to the point where it does not support the issuing of the corresponding order. This the present applicants do not do. There is thus no prospect that another court invested with the same facts as this court would come to a different conclusion.


[3] Accordingly, the following order is made:



a. Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

__________________

Vally J

Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg


Date of hearing: 4 March 2024

Date of judgment: 4 March 2024

For the applicants: Johan Fourie

Instructed by: Saltzman Attorneys

For the respondents: G Amm

Instructed by: Werksmans Attorneys


▲ To the top