Black Bond Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v Dynapac SA (Pty) Ltd (59158/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 974 (7 December 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 974 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Black Bond Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v Dynapac SA (Pty) Ltd (59158/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 974 (7 December 2022) Black Bond Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v Dynapac SA (Pty) Ltd (59158/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 974 (7 December 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2022_974.html sino date 7 December 2022 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 59158/2021 REPORTABLE:  NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO REVISED. In the matter between: BLACK BOND SURFACING  (PTY) LTD Appellant and DYNAPAC SA (PTY) LTD Respondent Coram:                                           Dlamini J Date of hearing:                              15 November 2022 – in a ‘virtual Hearing’ during a videoconference on Microsoft Teams digital platform. Date of delivery of Judgment:       07 December 2022 This judgment is deemed to have been delivered electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives via email and shall be uploaded onto the caselines system. JUDGMENT [LEAVE TO APPEAL] DLAMINI J [1] This an application for leave to appeal my judgment that I handed down on 9 August  2022. [2] This was rei vindicatio application for the return of certain equipment instituted by the respondent against the appellant herein [3] The background facts are commom cause. However, the appellant’s main arguments is that there are material dispute of facts in this case, as a result, the appellant submits that the application should be referred to trial for viva voce evidence. [4] It is trite that for an application for leave to appeal to be successful, the appellant must demonstrate that there are reasonable prospects that another Court would come to a different conclusion to that which was reached in the judgment that is sought to be taken on appeal. [5] The provisions of section 17 of the Supreme Court Act has now elevated the test to be applied for granting of leave to appeal. The use of the word “would” when considering the prospects of success in section 17 (1)(a)(i) , now imposes a more stringent and vigorous threshold. [6] In my view, the appelant’s claim of the existence of material dispute of facts has no merit and it is dismissed, this claim is solely intended to avoid appellant’s obligation to return the respondent’s machinery. For all the reasons stated above and in my judgment, I make the following order: ORDER The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs DLAMINI J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Date of hearing:                         15 November 2022 Delivered:                                   7 December 2022 For the Appellant:                      Adv AJ Venter Email: ajventer@law.co.za Instructed by: Martins Weir-Smith For the Respondent : SG Dos Santos Email: suzydsantos@gmail.com Instructed by: James Bush sino noindex make_database footer start