Case Law[2025] ZAGPJHC 659South Africa
Ackerman v Ventures (2022/050857) [2025] ZAGPJHC 659 (30 June 2025)
Judgment
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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 659
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Ackerman v Ventures (2022/050857) [2025] ZAGPJHC 659 (30 June 2025)
Ackerman v Ventures (2022/050857) [2025] ZAGPJHC 659 (30 June 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_659.html
sino date 30 June 2025
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
(1)
REPORTABLE:
NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
NO
(3)
REVISED:
NO
Date:
June
2025
Signature:
Case
no.
2022/ 050857
In
the matter between:
WILLEM
HENDRIK ACKERMAN
APPELLANT
And
KALON
VENTURES
RESPONDENT
Coram
:
Dlamini J
Date
of hearing:
12 June 2025
Delivered
:
30 June 2025 – This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties' representatives
via
email, by
being uploaded to
CaseLines
and by release to SAFLII. The date
and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on 30 June 2025
JUDGMENT
DLAMINI
J
Introduction
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
the judgment and order that I handed down on 13 March 2025.
[2]
The applicant had launched an application
seeking the final liquidation of the respondent. Having heard the
matter, I dismissed
the application with costs.
[3]
The applicant contends that the order was
made erroneously and is therefore seeking leave to appeal against the
entire order and
my judgment.
[4]
This application for leave to appeal is
opposed by the respondent.
Grounds of Appeal
[5]
The applicant’s grounds of appeal,
the parties' heads of argument, and this Court's judgment, including
the entire record
of appeal, must be deemed to be incorporated in
this judgment.
Test for Leave to
Appeal
[6]
The test for leave to appeal has been
varied. Section 17 of the Superior Court Act provides that leave to
appeal may only be granted
where the judge or judges concerned are of
the opinion that; –
6.1 The appeal would
have reasonable prospects of success; or
6.2.
There is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration
.
Analysis
[7]
In
general, meritless appeals may not be allowed. In
Mothuloe
Incorporated
Attorneys
v Law Society of the Northen Provinces and Another.
[1]
The
Court had this to say in this regard;
“
[18]…
therefore it would be advisable, when
dealing with an application for leave to appeal, to look at the
enabling statute to find guidance.
It is important to mention my
dissatisfaction with the court a quo’s granting of the leave to
appeal to this court. The test
is simply whether there are any
reasonable prospects of success in an appeal. It is not whether a
litigant has an arguable case
or a mere possibility of success…
…
.
This court has in the past bemoaned the regularity with which leave
is granted to this court in respect of matters not deserving
its
attention. (See
Shoprite
Checkers
(Pty) Ltd v Bumpers Schwarmas CC & Others
,
203(5) SA 354 (SCA) para23). This is one case where leave to appeal
should have been refused for lack of reasonable prospects
of
success.”
[8]
This simply illustrates that a court may
not grant leave to appeal where the threshold that warrants
such leave to appeal
has not been met by the applicant.
[9]
Considering the grounds of appeal, it
seems to me that the applicant has simply raised the same submissions
that were argued
during the hearing of the matter. I am satisfied
that I have dealt extensively with all the applicants’
submissions in my
judgment, and I found them to be meritless and were
dismissed. Thus, it will serve no purpose for me to repeat my reasons
herein.
[10]
Having carefully considered the applicant’s
grounds of appeal and the submissions made by both the applicant and
the respondent
in this application for leave to appeal, it is my
finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that another
court would
reach a different decision and that the applicant should
be granted leave to appeal.
[11]
In light of the above, based on Section 17
(1) (a) of the Superior Court Act, and the factual matrix of this
matter, I am not persuaded
that there are any reasons or
extraordinary circumstances that warrant the grant of leave to
appeal, which would have reasonable
prospects of success. There are
no compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter
under consideration.
[12]
In my view, the applicant has not presented
any facts that demonstrate that it has any prospects of success;
therefore, it would
not serve the interest of justice to grant leave
to appeal to the applicant.
Costs
[13]
The trite principle of our law is that
costs follow the results and are awarded to the successful party.
[14]
The respondent argues that the appeal is
simply an abuse of the court process and should therefore be met with
costs on the scale
as between attorney and client or, at the very
least, costs in accordance with Scale C. The appeal is meritless;
however, it does
not justify an order on a punitive scale. I am of
the view that costs in accordance with Scale C are appropriate given
the circumstances.
[15]
I make the following order.
ORDER
1.
The applicant’s application for leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs.
J DLAMINI
Judge of the High
Court
Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
For
the Applicant:
Adv.
N Riley
Instructed
by:
Darry Furman & Associates
info@furmanlaw.co.za
For
the Respondent: Adv.
T
Ossin
terence@rivoniaadvocates.co.za
Instructed
by:
Andrew De Vos &
Associates
andrew@devoslaw.co.za
/
niroshaadevoslaw.co.za
[1]
(213/16)
[2017] ZASCA 17
(22 March 2017).
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Ackerman v Kalon Venture Partners Limited (2022/050857) [2025] ZAGPJHC 267 (13 March 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 267High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
Ackerman v City Of Johannesburg (2022/9392) [2024] ZAGPJHC 334 (5 April 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 334High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
South African Council for Architectural Profession v O'Reilly and Another (28641/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 559 (2 June 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 559High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Reserve Bank v YWBN Mutual Bank (2025/059995) [2025] ZAGPJHC 518 (23 May 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 518High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
A.B. v Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd (2019/21688) [2025] ZAGPJHC 592 (26 May 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 592High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar