City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 307; 90433/2018 (10 May 2023)

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPPHC 307 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 307; 90433/2018 (10 May 2023) City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 307; 90433/2018 (10 May 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_307.html sino date 10 May 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case Number:  90433/2018 REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO REVISED Date: 2023-05-10 In the matter between: CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant and MALVIGENIX NPC t/a WECANWIN First Respondent PIETER NICOLAAS GROBLER Second Respondent ANNA ELLISSABETH GROBLER Third Respondent ETHEL MARGARET COETZEE Fourth Respondent MARTHA MARGARETHA DU PLESIS Fifth Respondent JOHANNES JACOBUS LOMBARD Sixth Respondent RESEANE KAIZER HUMPHRY MAKOLE Seventh Respondent YVONNE GOOD Eighth Respondent LYNN EAST PROP (PTY) LTD Ninth Respondent DIANA EDIT GEORGIADES Tenth Respondent FREDIERIK JACKOBUS VAN DER SANDE Eleventh Respondent JEANNE LOUISE VAN DER SANDE Twelfth Respondent EDMOUR MARCHAND Thirteenth Respondent NADIA MARCHAND Fourteenth Respondent MARC RICHARD TRUMAN N.O. Fifteenth Respondent GREGORY JOHN BOUWER Sixteenth Respondent CORNELIA JOHANNA BOUWER Seventeenth Respondent CHARLES KGOMOTSO TSOKU Eighteenth Respondent JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL POTTERILL J [1]      I have listened to the parties and have read the papers.  I think for compelling reasons, leave to appeal can be granted. [2]      I pondered this.  I think it is something that the Supreme Court of Appeal can look at so I will grant leave to appeal.  I don’t think the judgment was necessarily wrong, but I think the subject matter attracts attention from a higher court. [3]      The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.  Costs are to be costs in the appeal. S. POTTERILL JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT CASE NO:  90433/2018 HEARD ON: 01/10/23 FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV. T. STRYDOM SC ADV. L. KOTZE INSTRUCTED BY: Mothle Jooma Sabdia Incorporated FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV. N. FERREIRA ADV. A. MOLVER INSTRUCTED BY: Adams & Adams DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/10/23 DATE OF JUDGMENT DISTRIBUTED TO PARTIES: 05/10/23 sino noindex make_database footer start