Quatro Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v De Marionette Centre Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (018984/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 441 (5 May 2025)

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: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 441 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Quatro Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v De Marionette Centre Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (018984/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 441 (5 May 2025) Quatro Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v De Marionette Centre Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (018984/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 441 (5 May 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_441.html sino date 5 May 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 018984/2024 (1)      REPORTABLE: NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)      REVISED: NO (4)      Date: 05 May 2025 Signature: In the matter between: QUATRO SECURITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD First Applicant (Registration No. 2012/107563/07) QUATRO PROPERTY CARE (PTY) LTD Second Applicant (Registration No. 2017/532905/07) QUATRO CLEANING SERVICES (PTY) LTD Third Applicant (Registration No. 2012/176420/07) QUATRO HORTICULTURAL SERVICES (PTY) LTD Fourth Applicant (Registration No. 2015/226303/07) And DE MARIONETTE CENTRE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD First Respondent (Registration No. 2005/037870/07) FLORA CENTRE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent (Registration No. 2004/030198/07) RANGEVIEW INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Third Respondent (Registration No. 2005/037494/07) TARENTAAL CENTRE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent (Registration No. 2005/000028/07) WATERGLEN INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Fifth Respondent (Registration No. 2005/000076/07) THE VILLAGE MALL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Sixth Respondent (Registration No. 2004/030240/07) WITBANK HIGHVELD INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Seventh Respondent (Registration No. 2004/013979/07) CARLETONVILLE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Eighth Respondent (Registration No. 2005/037661/07) LIBERTY MALL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Ninth Respondent (Registration No. 2005/039152/07) AMBER SUNRISE PROPERTIES 95 (PTY) LTD Tenth Respondent (Registration No. 2007/021903/07) BORN FREE INVESTMENTS 552 (PTY) LTD Eleventh Respondent (Registration No. 2006/011303/07) PLANET WAVES 120 (PTY) LTD Twelfth Respondent (Registration No. 2005/039695/07) JUDGMENT NYATHI J [1]         The respondents are applying for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and costs order handed down on 27 November 2024. The applicants in the main application are opposing these efforts. [2]         The test applicable in determining whether to grant or refuse such applications is embodied in section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 which provides that: "17 Leave to appeal (1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that – (a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration; " [3] In dealing with the above section and its effect on applications for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Notshokovu v S [1] remarked that an appellant faces a higher and stringent threshold in terms of the Act compared to the provisions of the repealed Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959. [4] In MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha , [2] The SCA then held undeniably that an applicant for leave to appeal now faces a more stringent test when it stated: “ [16] Once again it is necessary to say that leave to appeal, especially to this court, must not be granted unless there truly is a reasonable prospect of success. Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 makes it clear that leave to appeal may only be given where the judge concerned is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or there is some other compelling reason why it should be heard. [17] An applicant for leave to appeal must convince the court on proper grounds that there is a reasonable prospect or realistic chance of success on appeal. A mere possibility of success, an arguable case or one that is not hopeless, is not enough. There must be a sound, rational basis to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.” [3] [5] Different considerations come into play when a court considers an application for leave to appeal as compared to adjudicating the appeal itself. Leave to appeal should be granted only when there is a sound and rational basis for doing so. The principles that emerge from Four Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC v Rattan NO [4] and Independent Examinations Board v Umalusi [5] require that the court test the grounds on which leave to appeal is sought against the facts of the case and the applicable legal principles to ascertain whether an appeal court ‘would’ interfere in the decision against which leave to appeal is sought. [6] [6] The respondents base their application for leave to appeal on the contention that the court misapplied the Plascon-Evans rule [7] in dealing with Mr Myburgh’s evidence, and that it should have found that as Myburgh submitted, there was a common intention between the parties that their agreement bore tacit terms and that rectification thereof should have been accepted by the court. The respondent’s version of events should have prevailed, and the application dismissed. [7]         The applicants in the main application as in the hearing, vehemently opposed the above submission and referred to the judgment, as being unfounded. [8] Having regard to the evidence in the main application, I still find that the respondents’ denials which constitute “the disputes” as being far-fetched and clearly untenable as justifying being rejected outright. [8] [9]         For this reason, I am not persuaded by the respondents’ submissions. The application fails, and the respondents herein (Quatro Security Services) are entitled to their costs, which should follow the outcome of the matter. [10]     I make the following order: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The respondents (applicants herein) to pay Quatro Security Services’ costs, including those of two counsel where so employed, to be taxed at scale B. J.S. NYATHI Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria Date of hearing: 28/02/2025 Date of Judgment: 05 May 2025 On behalf of the Applicants: Adv. MP Van der Merwe SC With him: Adv J Eastes Instructed by: Jansen van Rensburg & Partners E-mail: lou@jvrandpartners.co.za / jana@jvrandpartners.co.za On behalf of the Defendants: Adv. L Hollander Instructed by: Faber Goertz Ellis Austen Inc, Bryanston e-mail: diaan@fgea.co.za / nicholas@fgea.co.za c/o Friedland Hart Solomon & Nicholson; Pretoria Delivery : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 05 May 2025. [1] (unreported, SCA case no 157/15 dated 7 September 2016) [2] Unreported, SCA case no 1221/2015 dated 25 November 2016. [3] Emphasis in Erasmus RS 4, 2024, D-105. [4] 2019 (3) SA 451 (SCA) at para [34]. [5] Unreported, GP case no 83440/2019 dated 7 January 2021 at paras [2] – [4]. [6] Erasmus – Superior Court Practice [7] Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A). [8] See Wightman t/a JW construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another [2008] ZASCA 6 ; [2008] (3) SA 371 sino noindex make_database footer start