Chance and Luna (Pty) Ltd and Others v Killarney Country Club (2022/018731) [2024] ZAGPJHC 432 (2 April 2024)

Chance and Luna (Pty) Ltd and Others v Killarney Country Club (2022/018731) [2024] ZAGPJHC 432 (2 April 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to show good cause for a postponement, as the reasons advanced were entirely of their own making, including failure to act timeously, lack of a formal application, and conscious decisions not to brief alternative counsel. Financial difficulties and counsel's unavailability did not constitute a satisfactory explanation. The applicants also failed to address or establish the absence of prejudice to the respondent. Regarding leave to appeal, the court held that none of the grounds advanced met the statutory threshold of reasonable prospects of success. The main points raised by the applicants were either considered and rejected in the original...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 432
Parties
Applicant: Chance and Luna (Pty) Ltd trading as La Vie en Rose; Applicant: Muller, Rony; Applicant: Ezerzer, Momy; Applicant: Ezerzer, Lior; Applicant: City of Johannesburg Property Company SOC Ltd; Applicant: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Killarney Country Club
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 April 2024
Case Number
2022/018731
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment; Opposed Hearing
Outcome
Both the application for postponement and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
RJ Moultrie
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Threshold, Postponement of Hearing, Eviction Proceedings, Oral and Tacit Leases
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Threshold Postponement of Hearing Eviction Proceedings Oral and Tacit Leases

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chance and Luna (Pty) Ltd trading as La Vie en Rose

Applicant

Muller, Rony

Applicant

Ezerzer, Momy

Applicant

Ezerzer, Lior

Applicant

City of Johannesburg Property Company SOC Ltd

Applicant

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Applicant

Killarney Country Club

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment; Opposed Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants showed good cause for a postponement of the hearing date.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' grounds of appeal have reasonable prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to show good cause for a postponement, as the reasons advanced were entirely of their own making, including failure to act timeously, lack of a formal application, and conscious decisions not to brief alternative counsel. Financial difficulties and counsel's unavailability did not constitute a satisfactory explanation. The applicants also failed to address or establish the absence of prejudice to the respondent. Regarding leave to appeal, the court held that none of the grounds advanced met the statutory threshold of reasonable prospects of success. The main points raised by the applicants were either considered and rejected in the original...

Court Disposition

Both the application for postponement and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

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