Eco Africa Investments (Pty) Ltd v Snappy Chef Trading (Pty) Limited (10135/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 153 (16 February 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 153 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Eco Africa Investments (Pty) Ltd v Snappy Chef Trading (Pty) Limited (10135/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 153 (16 February 2023) Eco Africa Investments (Pty) Ltd v Snappy Chef Trading (Pty) Limited (10135/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 153 (16 February 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_153.html sino date 16 February 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH-AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISON, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 10135/2021 (1)    REPORTABLE: NO (2)    OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)    REVISED. DATE 16/02/2023 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: ECO AFRICA INVESTMENTS                                         APPLICANT (PTY) LIMITED T/A SNAPPY CHEF (WC) E BOTSWANA AND SNAPPY CHEF TRADING                                               RESPONDENT (PTY) LIMITED JUDGMENT (APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) STRIJDOM AJ 1.          This is an application for leave to appeal my judgement handed down on 7 November 2022 wherein the main application was dismissed with costs. 2.          Leave to appeal is sought to the Full Court of this division. 3.          The applicant’s grounds of appeal are summarily set out in their application for leave to appeal. 4. Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 provides that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or if there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard including conflicting judgements on the matter under consideration. 5.          Each application for leave to appeal must be decided on its own facts. 6.          The Superior Courts Act has raised the bar for granting leave to appeal in the Mont Chevaux Trust (IT 2012/28) v Tina Goosen and 18 others. The court held as follows: ‘ It is clear that the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgement of a High Court has been raised in the new Act. The former test whether leave to appeal should be granted was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion. The use of the word ‘would’ in the new statute indicated a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgement is sought to be appealed against.’ 7.          In my reasons for judgement, I properly dealt with all the issues raised by the applicant and gave comprehensive reasons for the findings. 8.          Having considered the grounds of appeal and submissions made by the parties, I am of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success that another court would come to a different conclusion. 9.          In the result the application for leave to appeal in dismissed with costs. STRIJDOM AJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION JOHANNESBURG sino noindex make_database footer start