Tayob and Others v Samons and Others (130746/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 922 (15 September 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 922 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Tayob and Others v Samons and Others (130746/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 922 (15 September 2025) Tayob and Others v Samons and Others (130746/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 922 (15 September 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_922.html sino date 15 September 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No. 130746/2025 In the matter between: TAYOB, MOHAMED MAHIER N.O 1 ST APPLICANT NORTHWEST TRANSPORT INVESTMENTS (SOC) LTD (IN BUSINESS RESCUE) 2 ND APPLICANT NORTHWEST STAR (SOC) LTD (IN BUSINESS RESCUE) 3 RD APPLICANT ATTERIDGEVILLE BUS SERVICES (SOC) LTD (IN BUSINESS RESCUE) 4 TH APPLICANT And SAMONS, THOMAS HENDRICK N.O 1 ST RESPONDENT MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SAFETY & TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT 2 ND RESPONDENT MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PROVINCIAL TREASURY OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT 3 RD RESPONDENT MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ROADS & TRANSPORT GAUTENG PROVINCE 4 TH RESPONDENT ABSA BANK LTD 5 TH RESPONDENT TANSNAT COACHLINES (PTY) LTD 6 TH RESPONDENT TRIPONZA TRADING 548 CC 7 TH RESPONDENT ALL AFFECTED PERSONS LISTED IN ANNEXURE X 8 TH RESPONDENT Coram: Millar J Heard on: 11 September 2025 Delivered: 15 September 2025 - This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 08H30 on 15 September 2025. JUDGMENT MILLAR J [1] The applicants have applied for leave to appeal against an order granted by me on 2 September 2025 in which the application was dismissed due to the first applicant having no locus standi .  This was the sole issue which, by agreement was to be determined. [1] The second respondent did not appear at the hearing of the main application but has now, made common cause with the applicants in seeking leave to appeal the judgment. The second respondent delivered a notice of appeal of its own. [2] The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act [2] as follows: “ ( 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 (ii)  there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration” [3]        I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought by both the applicants and the second respondent and the reasons given by me in the judgment for the order granted. The grounds are in my view a repetition of what was argued and considered before me initially and there is no need to traverse this terrain again. [4]        I have also considered the submissions made in court and in the respective heads of argument where these were filed, for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the applicants and second respondent and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the first, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents. [5]        I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion.  It was argued that there may be a notional lacuna in the time periods when one has regard to section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act read together with section 129(5) and section 139(3) of the Companies Act.  This it was argued, constituted a substantial and compelling reason why leave ought nevertheless to be granted.  In the present matter, factually, this lacuna did not arise and so while the issue may be of academic interest, it will in my view have no bearing on the outcome of any appeal.  It is thus in the circumstances not a substantial or compelling reason either for the granting of leave to appeal. [6]        In the circumstances, I make the following order: [6.1]            The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. [6.2]             The applicant and the second respondent, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the costs of the respondents who opposed the application for leave to appeal on the scale as between party and party, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the engagement of two counsel.  The scale of counsel’s costs is scale C. _____________________________ A MILLAR JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA HEARD ON:                                                   11 SEPTEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:                      15 SEPTEMBER 2025 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:                  ADV. G HULLEY SC INSTRUCTED BY:                                          MAYET INC. REFERENCE:                                                 MR. A MAYET COUNSEL FOR THE 1 st RESPONDENT:     ADV. AJ DANIELS SC ADV. C DE VILLIERS-GOLDING INSTRUCTED BY:                                          RICHTER ATTORNEYS REFERENCE:                                                 MR. B RICHTER COUNSEL FOR THE 2 nd RESPONDENT:         ADV. T MATHOPO INSTRUCTED BY:                                          MOSIRE TSIANE ATTORNEYS REFERENCE:                                                 MR. RAMASHALA COUNSEL FOR THE 6 TH , 7 TH AND ONE OF THE 8 TH RESPONDENTS:            ADV. A GOVENDER SC ADV. M DAFEL INSTRUCTED BY:                                          CUZEN RANDEREE DYASI INC. REFERENCE:                                                 MR. Z RANDEREE NO APPEARANCE FOR THE 3 RD , 4 TH AND 5 TH RESPONDENTS [1] There were other issues which were resolved by agreement and made an order of court, but they did not require any decision by the court. These are mentioned in the main judgment but have no bearing on the present application. [2] 10 of 2013. sino noindex make_database footer start