Galloptic Trade and Investments 15 (PTY) Ltd v Groenewald and Others (9333/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 741 (4 October 2022)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPJHC 741 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Galloptic Trade and Investments 15 (PTY) Ltd v Groenewald and Others (9333/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 741 (4 October 2022) Galloptic Trade and Investments 15 (PTY) Ltd v Groenewald and Others (9333/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 741 (4 October 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2022_741.html sino date 4 October 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: 9333/2020 REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO REVISED: In the application of: GALLOPTIC TRADE & INVESTMENTS 15 (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And GROENEWALD, DEON FIRST RESPONDENT GROENEWALD, KOOS SECOND RESPONDENT THE UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS OF PORTION 17 OF THE FARM WELTEVREDEN NR 17 THIRD RESPONDENT MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY FOURTH RESPONDENT Coram: Wepener J Date of hearing : 30 August 2022 Date of Judgment: 4 October 2022 This judgment is made an Order of Court by the Judge whose name is reflected herein, duly stamped by the Registrar of the Court and is submitted electronically to the Parties / their legal representatives by email. The judgment is further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines by the Judge his secretary. The date of this Order is deemed to be 4 October 2022. JUDGMENT Wepener, J: [1]        The applicants seek leave to appeal a judgment handed down by me on 20 April 2022. In the judgment I dealt with the point regarding notification that was given to the appellants. Despite the appellant’s counsel advising that if that point is found in the respondents favour, that it should be the end of the battle. There was some mention of aprobating and reprobating and the right to cancel whilst reprobating. I did not deal with this point in the judgment. Another court may find that the point is good. [2]        In the circumstances I grant the applicants leave to appeal to the full court of this division. [3]        The costs of the application are the costs in the appeal. W.L. Wepener Judge of the High Court of South Africa Counsel for the Applicants:                                Adv R Bhima Attorneys for the Applicants:                              Swanepoel van Zyl Attorneys Counsel for the Respondents:                           JH van den B Lubbe Attorneys for the Respondents:                         Crawford Legal Practitioners sino noindex make_database footer start