De Sausa v Van Huyssteen Architects (A3/2017) [2019] ZAMPMHC 23 (28 November 2019)

De Sausa v Van Huyssteen Architects (A3/2017) [2019] ZAMPMHC 23 (28 November 2019)

The court found that the appellant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. The explanation did not cover the entire period, lacked detail, and was unsupported by confirmatory affidavits. The appellant also failed to comply with Rule 50(4) by not serving the application for a hearing date on the respondent's attorneys and did not seek condonation for this non-compliance. The court held that the requirements for condonation were not met and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the application. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAMPMHC 23
Parties
Appellant: AM De Sausa Maia; Respondent: Van Huyssteen Architects
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2019
Case Number
A3/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation for the late filing of the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
HF Brauckmann, SS Mphahlele
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Appeal, Magistrates Court Rules, Uniform Rules of Court
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Appeal Magistrates Court Rules Uniform Rules of Court

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM De Sausa Maia

Appellant

Van Huyssteen Architects

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal is full, reasonable, and covers the entire period.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant complied with Rule 51(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules and Rule 50(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. The explanation did not cover the entire period, lacked detail, and was unsupported by confirmatory affidavits. The appellant also failed to comply with Rule 50(4) by not serving the application for a hearing date on the respondent's attorneys and did not seek condonation for this non-compliance. The court held that the requirements for condonation were not met and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the application. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation for the late filing of the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the appeal is dismissed with costs.