Batho Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Another v Setsiba and Others (4696/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 164 (3 September 2015)

Batho Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Another v Setsiba and Others (4696/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 164 (3 September 2015)

The court found that the answering affidavit filed by the respondents was not admitted as evidence until condonation was granted. The mere act of filing the affidavit with the registrar does not place it before the court, and thus does not constitute a further step in the proceedings for purposes of Rule 30. The applicants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the filing of the affidavit, which is a necessary requirement for the success of a Rule 30 application. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 164
Parties
Applicant: Batho Seventh-Day Adventist Church; Applicant: Siyabonga Magadlela; Respondent: Abram Mpapi Setsiba; Respondent: David Mokhele; Respondent: Sidney Mosemege; Respondent: Dineo Mosemege; Respondent: Oupa Mofokeng; Respondent: Sylvia Khoboko; Respondent: Cocong Khoboko; Respondent: Pinki Leeto; Respondent: Lerato Leeto; Respondent: Grace Mosia; Respondent: Lerato Kobile; Respondent: Ketsitseng Kobile; Respondent: Rose Moroka; Respondent: Samuel Tagoe; Respondent: Matshidiso Mokhele; Respondent: Mpho Marumo; Respondent: Palesa Marumo
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2015
Case Number
4696/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rule 30 Interlocutory Application.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
A. Kruger
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Applications, Condonation, Interlocutory Orders, Prejudice Requirement
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Applications Condonation Interlocutory Orders Prejudice Requirement

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

Batho Seventh-Day Adventist Church

Applicant

Siyabonga Magadlela

Applicant

Abram Mpapi Setsiba

Respondent

David Mokhele

Respondent

Sidney Mosemege

Respondent

Dineo Mosemege

Respondent

Oupa Mofokeng

Respondent

Sylvia Khoboko

Respondent

Cocong Khoboko

Respondent

Pinki Leeto

Respondent

Lerato Leeto

Respondent

Grace Mosia

Respondent

Lerato Kobile

Respondent

Ketsitseng Kobile

Respondent

Rose Moroka

Respondent

Samuel Tagoe

Respondent

Matshidiso Mokhele

Respondent

Mpho Marumo

Respondent

Palesa Marumo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rule 30 Interlocutory Application.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the filing of the answering affidavit without prior condonation constitutes a further step in proceedings for purposes of Rule 30.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants suffered prejudice by the filing of the answering affidavit before condonation was granted.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the answering affidavit filed by the respondents was not admitted as evidence until condonation was granted. The mere act of filing the affidavit with the registrar does not place it before the court, and thus does not constitute a further step in the proceedings for purposes of Rule 30. The applicants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the filing of the affidavit, which is a necessary requirement for the success of a Rule 30 application. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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