Draht N.O and Others v Manqele and Others (29501/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 288 (11 July 2019)

Draht N.O and Others v Manqele and Others (29501/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 288 (11 July 2019)

The court found that the grounds advanced by the first respondent for leave to appeal did not establish a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the condonation order. The confusion over the correct order was a factual matter, and the granting of condonation did not affect the substantive rights in the main action. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed. Furthermore, the court determined that the present application constituted a dilatory tactic as described in Harding & Others v Maclear, justifying a punitive costs order against the first respondent's attorney de bonis propriis.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 288
Parties
Applicant: Heiko Draht N.O.; Applicant: Marc Bradley Beginsen N.O.; Applicant: Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O.; Respondent: Thlani Joseph Manqele; Respondent: The Standard Bank of South Africa; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 July 2019
Case Number
29501/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Condonation Order in Main Action
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with punitive costs order against the first respondent's attorney de bonis propriis.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heiko Draht N.O.

Applicant

Marc Bradley Beginsen N.O.

Applicant

Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O.

Applicant

Thlani Joseph Manqele

Respondent

The Standard Bank of South Africa

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Condonation Order in Main Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the order granting condonation for late delivery of the applicants' declaration.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds advanced by the first respondent establish a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the first respondent's attorney warrants a punitive costs order de bonis propriis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds advanced by the first respondent for leave to appeal did not establish a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the condonation order. The confusion over the correct order was a factual matter, and the granting of condonation did not affect the substantive rights in the main action. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed. Furthermore, the court determined that the present application constituted a dilatory tactic as described in Harding & Others v Maclear, justifying a punitive costs order against the first respondent's attorney de bonis propriis.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with punitive costs order against the first respondent's attorney de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The first respondent's attorney is to pay the applicants' costs of this application on the scale as between attorney and client, de bonis propriis.