Adlem and Another v Arlow (782/11) [2012] ZASCA 163 (19 November 2012)

Adlem and Another v Arlow (782/11) [2012] ZASCA 163 (19 November 2012)

The court found that in both applications for condonation, the appellants provided acceptable explanations for the delays, and the prospects of success were good, as evidenced by their success in the appeal. The respondent's opposition was deemed unreasonable, particularly given the lack of actual prejudice and the unnecessary volume of documentation submitted. The respondent's claims of deliberate delay and prejudice were not substantiated, and the hearing of the appeal was not delayed. Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs occasioned by his opposition to the condonation applications.

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 163
Parties
Appellant: Eugene Adlem; Appellant: Joseph Adlem; Respondent: Nestor Algemus Arlow
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2012
Case Number
782/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North West High Court, Mafikeng
Outcome
Appeal succeeded; condonation granted; costs orders made against respondent for unreasonable opposition.
Judges
Cloete, Cachalia, Shongwe, Theron, Erasmus
Legal Topics
Condonation, Costs Award, Late Filing, Opposition to Condonation
Civil Procedure Condonation Costs Award Late Filing Opposition to Condonation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Adlem

Appellant

Joseph Adlem

Appellant

Nestor Algemus Arlow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North West High Court, Mafikeng

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the opposition to the applications for condonation was reasonable and justified.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants provided acceptable explanations for the late filing of documents.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent suffered prejudice due to the late filing by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that in both applications for condonation, the appellants provided acceptable explanations for the delays, and the prospects of success were good, as evidenced by their success in the appeal. The respondent's opposition was deemed unreasonable, particularly given the lack of actual prejudice and the unnecessary volume of documentation submitted. The respondent's claims of deliberate delay and prejudice were not substantiated, and the hearing of the appeal was not delayed. Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs occasioned by his opposition to the condonation applications.

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeded; condonation granted; costs orders made against respondent for unreasonable opposition.

Orders

  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs on an unopposed basis in each application for condonation.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the appellants' costs occasioned by his opposition to the condonation applications.