Boshoff and Another v Ryanzac Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (84068/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 18 (5 February 2019)

Boshoff and Another v Ryanzac Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (84068/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 18 (5 February 2019)

The court found that the applicants were in wilful default for ignoring the summons and attempting to negotiate rather than defend the matter. Their explanation was not acceptable. The suspensive condition was properly pleaded in the particulars of claim, and the applicants failed to respond as required. The court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The lease agreement justified a costs order on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 18
Parties
Applicant: Jacoba Boshoff; Applicant: Dirk Cornelius du Toit; Respondent: Ryanzac Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The MEC for Education, Gauteng; Respondent: Berea Park Independent High School CC (Involuntary Liquidation)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2019
Case Number
84068/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal to Rescind Default Judgment.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rescission of Judgment, Wilful Default, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Rescission of Judgment Wilful Default Costs Order

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

Jacoba Boshoff

Applicant

Dirk Cornelius du Toit

Applicant

Ryanzac Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The MEC for Education, Gauteng

Respondent

Berea Park Independent High School CC (Involuntary Liquidation)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal to Rescind Default Judgment.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the refusal to rescind the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' explanation for ignoring the summons constitutes acceptable grounds for rescission.
  3. 3 Whether the suspensive condition was properly pleaded and constitutes a triable issue.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were in wilful default for ignoring the summons and attempting to negotiate rather than defend the matter. Their explanation was not acceptable. The suspensive condition was properly pleaded in the particulars of claim, and the applicants failed to respond as required. The court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The lease agreement justified a costs order on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the applicants on a scale as between attorney and client.