Ryan v Wood (Leave to Appeal) (048177/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 879 (11 September 2024)

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 >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 879 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Ryan v Wood (Leave to Appeal) (048177/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 879 (11 September 2024) Ryan v Wood (Leave to Appeal) (048177/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 879 (11 September 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_879.html sino date 11 September 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 048177/2024 (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED: DATE: 11/09/2024 SIGNATURE In the matter between: DEWALT RYAN Appellant And ESTATE LATE : MARGARET WOOD Respondent In re: ESTATE LATE: MARGARET WOOD Applicant And NADONIX (PTY) LTD First Respondent DEWALT RYAN Second Respondent DORIS RYAN Third Respondent OTHER OCCUPANTS OF PORTION Fourth Respondent MADIBENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Firth Respondent JUDGMENT (APPLICANT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) MOGOTSI AJ Introduction 1. This is an opposed application for Leave to Appeal to the full Bench of the High Court of South Africa by the second applicant against the judgement or order granted on 9 June 2024. 2. The Appellant, the Second Respondent in the main application, appeared in person and Adv CFJ Brandt SC together with Adv D Kock appeared for the Respondent. I shall, for convenience, refer to the parties as cited in the application for leave to appeal. Leave to appeal 3. Leave to appeal is now governed by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 ("the Act"). The section provides that: (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. 4. Before the Act came into force, the test in an application for leave to appeal was whether there were reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion. Much debate has ensued as to whether s 17(1) imposes a more stringent and onerous test before leave to appeal can be granted. [1] I believe it is now authoritatively established that the position remains that if there is a reasonable prospect of success, leave to appeal should be granted. The different views and findings in this regard, in my view, essentially are now moot in light of the findings in Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress and Another . [2] 5. In Ramakatsa [3] , in interpreting the section, the SCA held that: “ If a reasonable prospect of success is established, leave to appeal should be granted. Similarly, if there are some other compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard, leave to appeal should be granted. The test of reasonable prospects of success postulates a dispassionate decision based on the facts and the law that a court of appeal could reasonably arrive at a conclusion different to that of the trial court. In other words, the appellants in this matter need to convince this Court on proper grounds that they have prospects of success on appeal. ” 6. I, accordingly, consider this application for leave to appeal on the basis that leave should be granted if a reasonable prospect of success is established, or if there are some other compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard. Grounds for leave to appeal 7. The Applicant's various grounds of appeal set out in its application for leave to appeal and, in summary form, are that the court erred in respect of practically all its findings. 8. The judgment is attacked on the following grounds: 8.1 The court erred in finding that the applicants were unlawful occupiers because they were granted occupation by the respondent on the 1st of June 2017 and were consequently bona fide occupiers. 8.2 The court erred in not investigating allegations of forgery and fraud, although presented with irrefutable evidence thereof. 8.3 The court erred in not properly considering that the Second applicant and other occupants of the property were destitute and entirely dependent on the Old Age Grant by the Government, that they had spent all their resources and savings on the property, that their children were not in a position to provide any assistance because the daughter could hardly make ends meet, and lastly that their only son is unemployed and unable to find work. 8.4 The court erred in finding that the occupiers had no lien over the property before they became “illegal occupants”. Conclusion 9. After careful consideration, I am of the view that the numerous grounds of appeal lack merit. 10. I was not convinced during the argument that I erred in any way, nor was I convinced that in the exercise of its discretion, another Court would interfere with the judgment or order. I am, therefore, of the view that there exists no reasonable prospect that another Court might come to a different conclusion. 11. Because there are no compelling reasons why leave to appeal should be granted, and none were raised, it cannot be granted on this basis. 12. In the premises, the application for leave to appeal falls to be dismissed. Order HAVING HEARD the Appellant and the Respondent’s counsel, it is ordered that: 1. The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs on the scale as between attorney and client. P MOGOTSI Acting Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria APPEARANCES: For Appellant: Mr D Ryan For Respondent: Adv C F Brandt SC with Adv D Kock Date of hearing: 28 August 2024 Date of Judgment: 11 September 2024 [1] See The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others 2014 JDR 2325 (LCC) and Marschall v.Schleyer and Others 2022 JDR 3343 (GJ) where the Court held that an applicant now faces a higher and more stringent test. [2] [ 2021] JOL 49993 (SCA) March 2021. [3] At paragraph 10. sino noindex make_database footer start