De Wet N.O and Others v Walker and Others (Leave to Appeal) (16480/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1214 (28 September 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 1214 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## De Wet N.O and Others v Walker and Others (Leave to Appeal) (16480/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1214 (28 September 2023) De Wet N.O and Others v Walker and Others (Leave to Appeal) (16480/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1214 (28 September 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_1214.html sino date 28 September 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA] CASE NO: 16480/20 (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED DATE: 28/09/2023 SIGNATURE: In the matter between:- GERT LOURENS STEYN DE WET NO. First Applicant KAREN KEEVY NO. Second Applicant SIMOE LIESEL MAGARDIE NO. Third Applicant IRENE SUZAN PONNEN NO. Fourth Applicant [as the joined liquidators of Aurora Empowerment Systems Pty Ltd] AURORA EMPOWERMENT SYSTEMS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) Fifth Applicant and JOHN WALKER First Respondent JOHN WALKER ATTORNEYS INC Second Respondent SCHABORT POTGIETER ATTORNEYS Third Respondent DEON MARIUS BOTHA NO. Fourth Respondent BAREND PETERSEN NO. Fifth Respondent ALLAN DAVID PELLOW NO. Sixth Respondent JOHAN FRANCOIS ENGELBRECHT Seventh Respondent [as liquidators of Pamodzi Gold Estate Rand Ply Ltd] PAMODZI GOLD ESTATE RAND PTY LTD Eighth Respondent THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA Ninth Respondent JUDGMENT SKOSANA AJ [1]        This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment. To avoid confusion, I refer to the parties as in the original application. The application for leave to appeal has been brought by the first and second respondents as well as the fourth to eighth respondents. [2]        I have considered the grounds for leave to appeal as well as the arguments presented by the respective counsel. I am not persuaded that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success. [3]        Consequently, I make the following order: [1]        Leave to appeal is refused with costs. DT SKOSANA Acting Judge of the High Court Pretoria sino noindex make_database footer start