D.E.T v F.T (Leave to Appeal) (158730/2014) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1064 (22 October 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 1064 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## D.E.T v F.T (Leave to Appeal) (158730/2014) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1064 (22 October 2024) D.E.T v F.T (Leave to Appeal) (158730/2014) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1064 (22 October 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_1064.html sino date 22 October 2024 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :  158730/2014 DATE :  30-07-2024 (1) REPORTABLE:  NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO. (3) REVISED. DATE 22 October 2024 SIGNATURE In the matter between D[...] E[...] T[...]                                                   Applicant and F[...] T[...]                                                       Respondent JUDGMENT LEAVE TO APPEAL YACOOB, J : This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment that was handed down over a year ago.  The application for leave only came to my attention during April 2024 due to some lapses in the appeals office and was initially set down for hearing during May 2024.  It was postponed to give the parties an opportunity to attempt to settle the matter.  However, those attempts were unsuccessful. The test for leave to appeal is whether there is a prospect of success on appeal, and the applicant has to show that another court is likely to come to a different conclusion than this court did. Mr Seoka, for the applicant, submitted that it is a simple question.  The question is, do the parties agree on the division of the estate?  If they do not agree, then the matter should be referred to the liquidator. The application before me was for the appointment of a receiver and liquidator of the joint estate of the parties, who are already divorced.  However, as I found in my judgment, it seems to me that the question is a little bit more complicated, and one has to look at the questions on which the parties disagree.  It is only when the parties disagree on the mode of division, rather than the proportions in which the division is to take place, that it is appropriate to appoint a liquidator. Mr Ndlovu, for the respondent, submitted that another court would not come to a different conclusion, that the parties are not ad idem about what their legal rights are within the estate, and that these questions need to be determined by a court.  This is in fact consistent with my view, that the applicant ought to have brought the actual dispute about what the rights of the parties are to a court, rather than simply seeking the appointment of a liquidator. It matters what the dispute is, or rather it matters what it is the parties are unable to agree about.  So the question is not simply whether the parties agree, but what it is they cannot agree about.  I cannot simply accept the argument that if the parties do not agree, the question must be referred to a liquidator. I am therefore not satisfied that another court would come to a different conclusion, because there are disputes between the parties which affect their legal rights and which are not within the purview of a liquidator to determine.  For these reasons, THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DISMISSED, WITH COSTS. - - - - - - - - - - - YACOOB, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE :  22/10/2024 sino noindex make_database footer start