Steyn and Others v AA Spring & Wire (Pty) Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2024/111871) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1262 (17 November 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 1262 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Steyn and Others v AA Spring & Wire (Pty) Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2024/111871) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1262 (17 November 2025) Steyn and Others v AA Spring & Wire (Pty) Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2024/111871) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1262 (17 November 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1262.html sino date 17 November 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 2024-111871 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: NO DATE: 17/11/2025 SIGNATURE: In the matter between: JOHANNES PHILLIPPUS FREDERICK STEYN 1 st Applicant KAREN STEYN 2 nd Applicant RENEE MAGDALENA STEYN 3 rd Applicant PHILLIPUS STEYN (SNR) 4 th Applicant A2Z TRADER AND SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED 5 th Applicant and AA SPRING & WIRE (PTY) LIMITED Respondent In re: AA SPRING & WIRE (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and JOHANNES PHILLIPPUS FREDERICK STEYN 1 st Respondent WILLIAM GUNSTON AUGUST VICTOR 2 nd Respondent VICTOR STEEL (PTY) LIMITED 3 rd Respondent LISL COETZEE 4 th Respondent KAREN STEYN 5 th Respondent RENEE MAGDALENA STEYN 6 th Respondent MR PHILLIPUS STEYN (SNR) 7 th Respondent A2Z TRADER AND SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED 8 th Respondent INSIMBI MANUFACTURING 9 th Respondent LEAVE TO APPEAL MOKOSE J [1]        The applicants have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal alternatively, the Full Court of this Division against the judgment and order I delivered on 10 February 2025 under case number 111871/2024. [2]        The applicants seek leave to appeal on several grounds as stated in its application for leave to appeal. Counsel for the applicants addressed the court on the salient points raised in the application. These points were opposed by counsel for the respondent on the grounds that I have reasoned out well in my judgment and made submissions that there are no prospects of success. [3]        The test for granting an application for leave to appeal is whether there are reasonable prospects of success. Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ("the Act") states that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge or judges are of the opinion that: (a)       (i)         the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or (ii)        for some other compelling reason, it should be heard, including conflicting judgements on the matter under consideration. (b)       the decision sought does not fall within the ambit of Section 16(2)(a) of the Act; and (c)        where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties. [4]        The test laid down in Section 17 of the Act is now a subjective one and no longer an objective test. There must be a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against. [1] The court held in the case of The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others as follows: "It is clear that the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgment of a High Court has been raised in the new Act. The former test whether leave to appeal should be granted was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion, see Van Heerden v Cornwright & Others 1985 (2) SA 342 (T) at 343H. the use of the word "would" in the new statute indicates a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against." [5]       I had dealt in depth with the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my judgement. After listening to submissions by both counsel for the applicants and counsel for the respondent and after reading the application for leave to appeal, I am of the view that there are no prospects of success. [6]        In the premises, the following order is granted: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. MOKOSE J Judge of the High Court of South Africa Gauteng Division, PRETORIA For the Applicants:             Adv DJ Groenewald On instructions of:              Serfontein Viljoen & Swart For the Respondent:          Adv AM Heystek SC On instructions of:              Tuckers Inc Date of judgment:               17 November 2025 [1] The Mont Cheveaux Trust (IT2012/28) v Tina Goosen & 18 Others 2014 JDR 2325 at para [6] sino noindex make_database footer start