Celliers and Others v Kleinfontein Aandeleblok (Edms) BPK and Another (Leave to Appeal) (4755/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1103 (31 October 2024)

Celliers and Others v Kleinfontein Aandeleblok (Edms) BPK and Another (Leave to Appeal) (4755/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1103 (31 October 2024)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to set out proper grounds for leave to appeal, merely listing purported errors without identifying specific factual or legal misdirections. The grounds advanced were vague, abstract, and did not assist the court in determining whether there was a reasonable prospect of success or compelling reasons for appeal. The applicants did not demonstrate a clear right to the interdictory relief sought, nor did they show that the relief granted against the municipality was inadequate. The breach of statutory provisions relating to planning and building regulation did not automatically confer a private right to an...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1103
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Petrus Celliers; Applicant: Paul Ernest McMenamin; Applicant: Izak Jacobus Booysen; Applicant: Johannes Venter; Respondent: Kleinfontein Aandeleblok (Edms) BPK; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Case Number
4755/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Main Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
A Vorster
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Final Interdict, Judicial Discretion, Adequate Alternative Remedy, Statutory Contravention, Doctrine of Legality
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Final Interdict Judicial Discretion Adequate Alternative Remedy Statutory Contravention Doctrine of Legality

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Petrus Celliers

Applicant

Paul Ernest McMenamin

Applicant

Izak Jacobus Booysen

Applicant

Johannes Venter

Applicant

Kleinfontein Aandeleblok (Edms) BPK

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of application for leave to appeal properly and succinctly sets out the grounds for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether there are compelling reasons why leave to appeal should be granted, including public interest or conflicting judgments.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to set out proper grounds for leave to appeal, merely listing purported errors without identifying specific factual or legal misdirections. The grounds advanced were vague, abstract, and did not assist the court in determining whether there was a reasonable prospect of success or compelling reasons for appeal. The applicants did not demonstrate a clear right to the interdictory relief sought, nor did they show that the relief granted against the municipality was inadequate. The breach of statutory provisions relating to planning and building regulation did not automatically confer a private right to an...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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