africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2023] ZAGPJHC 826South Africa

Davidson v Cough NO and Others (41962/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 826 (25 July 2023)

High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
25 July 2023
OTHER J, RESPONDENT J, TWALA J

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 826 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Davidson v Cough NO and Others (41962/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 826 (25 July 2023) Davidson v Cough NO and Others (41962/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 826 (25 July 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_826.html sino date 25 July 2023 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: 41962/2021 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED In the matter between: SEAN RIST DAVIDSON Applicant and BRENDA MEGAN COUGH N.O. (Cited in her capacity as the Executrix in The estate late David Cough) FIRST RESPONDENT BRENDA MEGAN COUGH (Identity No:[…]) SECOND RESPONDENT STAND 1231 LEISURE BAY CLOSE CORPORATION (Registration No:[…]) THIRD RESPONDENT STAND 1232 LEISURE BAY CLOSE CORPORATION (Registration No […]) FOURTH RESPONDENT THE COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION FIFTH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to Parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Case Lines. The date of the judgment is deemed to be the 25 th of July 2023. TWALA J [1] For the sake of convenience, in this judgment I shall refer to the parties as they are referred to in the main application and in the judgment. [2] The first and second respondents brought this application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this Court handed down electronically on the 20 th of December 2022. It is worth noting that the third and fourth respondents are not participating in this application for leave to appeal as they did not participate in the main application. [3]  It is a trite principle of our law that leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. (See section 17 (1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 ). [4]  The grounds for the leave to appeal are succinctly stated in the notice of application for leave to appeal and I do not intend to repeat them in this judgment. Furthermore, I am grateful to both counsel for the parties for the submissions made at the hearing of this application for leave to appeal. [5]  I am satisfied that I have covered and considered all the issues raised in the application for leave to appeal in my judgment. I am therefore not persuaded by the respondents that there are reasonable prospects of success in this appeal. Put differently, I am of the view that there is no prospect that another Court would come to a different conclusion in this case. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal the judgment falls to be dismissed with costs. [6]  In the circumstances, the following order is made: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. TWALA M L JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION Date of Hearing:   20 th of July 2023 Date of Judgment:  25 th of July 2023 For the Applicant: Advocate S Meyer Instructed by: Harris Billings Attorneys Tel: 011 784 1910 megan@hbattorneys.co.za For the Respondents: Advocate R Willis Instructed by: Denzil Michael Fryer Attorneys Tel: 011 675 5320 denzil@dmfa.co.za sino noindex make_database footer start

Similar Cases

Davidson v Trustees of Macedon Body Corporate N.O and Others (2022/061232) [2024] ZAGPJHC 846 (30 August 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 846High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
Davidson v Cough N.O. and Others (41962/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1007 (20 December 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 1007High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
David v Road Accident Fund (26128/2015) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1211 (21 November 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1211High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
David v Investec Bank Limited and Others (2021/24303) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1246 (1 December 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1246High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
D.K and Others v C.F (26567/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1331 (20 November 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1331High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)98% similar

Discussion