Lendtech Investment Holdings Private Limited v IMS Tech Corp Limited and Others (2023-025384) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1042 (18 September 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 1042 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Lendtech Investment Holdings Private Limited v IMS Tech Corp Limited and Others (2023-025384) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1042 (18 September 2023) Lendtech Investment Holdings Private Limited v IMS Tech Corp Limited and Others (2023-025384) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1042 (18 September 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1042.html sino date 18 September 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2023-025384 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED 18.09.23 In the matter between: LENDTECH INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMTED APPLICANT And IMS TECH CORP LIMITED 1 st RESPONDENT IMS VENTURES (PTY) LTD 2 nd RESPONDENT IMS VENTURES DIGITAL (PTY) LTD 3 rd RESPONDENT MOBI SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD 4 th RESPONDENT TELKOM SA SOC LIMITED 5 th RESPONDENT MTN GROUP LIMITED 6 th RESPONDENT MOBILE TELEPHONE NETWORKS (PTY) LTD 7 th RESPONDENT JUDGMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WRIGHT J 1. On 6 June 2023 I handed down a typed, signed judgment in the main application. This judgment is to be read with that judgment. 2. Lendtech now seeks leave to appeal my order of 6 June 2023. 3. In my view and with the provisions of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 in mind the applicant, Lendtech has no reasonable prospect on appeal and under section 17(1)(a)(ii) there is no other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted. 4. The respondents sought dismissal of this application with costs on a punitive scale. The arguments are that this application, like that before me originally, is hopeless and there has been a change of tack in argument on appeal. 5. I would not go so far as to find that the present application is dishonest just because there is a change in argument. Taking perhaps a somewhat lenient view of the applicant’s case now, ordinary costs suffice in the present application. ORDER 1. The application is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel where so employed. GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD  :  18 September 2023 DELIVERED :  18 September 2023 APPEARANCES  : APPLICANT Adv Anthonie Jansen Van Vuuren SC vanv@law.co.za Instructed by KapdiTwala Inc t/a Vanessa Jacklin-Levin and Kirith Haria Vanessa.jacklinlevin@dentons.com / Kirith.haria@dentons.com / Johannesburg.litigations.com 1 st to 4 th RESPONDENTS Adv Alfred Cockrell SC Adv Luke Kelly Jeremy@gauntlett.co.za Luke.kelly@capebar.co.za Instructed by CMS Attorney siphokazi.kayana@cms-rm.com nomfundo.m-jackson@cms-rm.com 5 th RESPONDENT Adv Nazeer Cassim SC Adv Yakoob Alli Ncassim@law.co.za Alli@counsel.co.za Instructed by Webber Wentzel Attorneys Priyesh.daya@webberwentzel.com martin.hattingh@webberwentzel.com 6 th and 7 th RESPONDENTS Adv Dennis Fine SC Adv Makhotso Lengane Dennis@counsel.co.za Lengane@group621.co.za Instructed by Werksmans Attorneys Cmanaka@werksmans.com abilatyi@werksmans.com krapoo@werksmans.com sino noindex make_database footer start