Kingsgate Clothing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Edcon Limited (In Business Rescue) (57045/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 162 (1 March 2022)

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 >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPPHC 162 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Kingsgate Clothing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Edcon Limited (In Business Rescue) (57045/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 162 (1 March 2022) Kingsgate Clothing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Edcon Limited (In Business Rescue) (57045/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 162 (1 March 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_162.html sino date 1 March 2022 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED 1 March 2022 CASE NO: 57045/20 In the matter between: KINGSGATE CLOTHING (PTY) LTD                                                    FIRST APPLICANT MAYTEX LINEN CC                                                                                SECOND APPLICANT SUPER OCEAN TRADING CC                                                                THIRD APPLICANT MAYTEX CARDING CC                                                                          FOURTH APPLICANT CRUISE COLLECTIONS CC                                                                    FIFTH APPLICANT TWIN CLOTHING MANUFACTURERS (PTY) LTD                            SIXTH APPLICANT APPAREL INDUSTRIES (PTY) LTD                                                      SEVENTH APPLICANT CLEMATIS TRADING (PTY) LTD                                                         EIGHTH APPLICANT and EDCON LIMITED (IN BUSINESS RESCUE)                                        FIRST RESPONDENT PIERS MARSDEN                                                                                    SECOND RESPONDENT (JOINT BUSINESS RESCUE PRACTITIONER) LANCE SHAPIRO                                                                                     THIRD RESPONDENT (JOINT BUSINESS PRACTITIONER) JUSTICE FDJ BRAND                                                                              FOURTH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Van der Schyff J Introduction [1] In this judgment, the parties are referred to as in the main application. [2] The applicants filed an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order delivered on 15 November 2021. The applicants raised several grounds of appeal. I do not intend to deal with these grounds herein, as I handed down a written judgment wherein I provided the reasons for my findings. The grounds of appeal generally constitute a re-arguing of matters argued when the application was heard. [3] It is trite that to succeed in an application for leave to appeal, 'more is required to be established than that there is a mere possibility of success, that the case is arguable on appeal or that the case cannot be categorised as hopeless.' [1] [4] The applicants submit that a compelling reason exists for leave to appeal to be granted to them. I disagree. The importance of context in interpreting documents, and the admissibility of contextual evidence do not constitute a novel ground that needs to be pronounced on by the Supreme Court of Appeal. [5] After considering the grounds of appeal, I am not of the opinion that a reasonable probability exists that another court would or could come to a different conclusion. [6]       Regarding costs, the application for leave to appeal was not complex. The respondents did not file heads of argument and the submissions made by counsel was to the point and curt. Opposing the application for leave to appeal did not require the service of two counsel. ORDER In the result, the following order is made: 1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. E van der Schyff Judge of the High Court Delivered: This judgement is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. It will be sent to the parties/their legal representatives by email as a courtesy gesture. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 1 March 2022. Counsel for the applicants:                                  Adv. O A Moosa SC With:                                                                    Adv. A MacManus Instructed by:                                                       Pather and Pather Attorneys Inc. Counsel for the 1 st - 3rd respondents:                 Adv. A E Sham SC With: Adv. J. E Smit Instructed by:                                                       ENS Africa Date of the hearing:                                              21 February 2022 Date of judgment:                                                 1 March 2022 [1] Smith v S 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA) at para 7. sino noindex make_database footer start