Corvine Investments CC v Advtech (Pty) Ltd t/a Property Division (2145/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1395 (30 November 2023)

Corvine Investments CC v Advtech (Pty) Ltd t/a Property Division (2145/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1395 (30 November 2023)

The court held that, although it disagreed with the procedural inconvenience created by the precedent in NUMSA v Jumbo Products, it was bound by that decision. The refusal of condonation for the late application for leave to appeal does not amount to a refusal of leave to appeal under section 17(2)(b) of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1395
Parties
Applicant: Corvine Investments CC; Respondent: Advtech (Pty) Ltd t/a Property Division
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Case Number
2145/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Todd
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Superior Courts Act, Late Filing, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Superior Courts Act Late Filing Prospects of Success

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corvine Investments CC

Applicant

Advtech (Pty) Ltd t/a Property Division

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal constitutes a refusal of leave to appeal under section 17(2)(b) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the condonation judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the explanation for the delay in bringing the application for leave to appeal was reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although it disagreed with the procedural inconvenience created by the precedent in NUMSA v Jumbo Products, it was bound by that decision. The refusal of condonation for the late application for leave to appeal does not amount to a refusal of leave to appeal under section 17(2)(b) of the Superior Courts Act. The court considered the applicant's explanation for the delay and the alleged prospects of success on appeal but found both unpersuasive. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the condonation judgment was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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