Basenzi Construction CC t/a Power Wheel and Tyres and Another v Hofmil Investments (Pty) Ltd (3573/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 599 (18 January 2018)

Basenzi Construction CC t/a Power Wheel and Tyres and Another v Hofmil Investments (Pty) Ltd (3573/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 599 (18 January 2018)

The court found that the applicants' notice for leave to appeal was poorly drafted, vague, and failed to meet the peremptory requirements of Rule 49(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The grounds of appeal were either too broad, unclear, or not properly formulated, and the main argument raised in heads of argument...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 599
Parties
Applicant: Basenzi Construction CC t/a Power Wheel and Tyres; Applicant: Winkie Amos Peta; Respondent: Hofmil Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2018
Case Number
3573/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment and Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rescission of Judgment, Lease Agreement, Bona Fide Defence, National Building Regulations, Contractual Warranty
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Rescission of Judgment Lease Agreement Bona Fide Defence National Building Regulations Contractual Warranty

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basenzi Construction CC t/a Power Wheel and Tyres

Applicant

Winkie Amos Peta

Applicant

Hofmil Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' notice for leave to appeal meets the requirements of Rule 49(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds of appeal as set out in the notice are clear, unambiguous, and properly formulated.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a reasonable prospect of success on appeal as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' notice for leave to appeal was poorly drafted, vague, and failed to meet the peremptory requirements of Rule 49(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The grounds of appeal were either too broad, unclear, or not properly formulated, and the main argument raised in heads of argument constituted a new ground not set out in the notice. The court considered the new ground in the interest of justice due to the applicants' lack of legal representation but found that the facts of the case were distinguishable from Gateway Properties. The applicants had taken occupation, conducted business, made payments, and were eventually evicted for non-payment, which did...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.