Du Plessis and Another v Mjwara and Another (14848/05) [2008] ZAGPHC 349 (16 October 2008)

Du Plessis and Another v Mjwara and Another (14848/05) [2008] ZAGPHC 349 (16 October 2008)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory and detailed explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. Their account of events was vague, particularly regarding their lack of communication with their attorneys over an extended period. The court held that the blame for the delay rested squarely with the applicants and not their attorneys. In line with established principles, condonation may be refused in cases of flagrant breaches of the rules, irrespective of the prospects of success. The cumulative effect of the applicants' conduct and the lack of an acceptable explanation rendered the application for condonation unworthy of...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 349
Parties
Appellant: Barry Du Plessis; Appellant: Hester Du Plessis; Respondent: Queen Mjwara; Respondent: Dumisani Nene
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 October 2008
Case Number
14848/05
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
N.M. Mavundla
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Summary Judgment, Non Compliance With Rules
Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Summary Judgment Non Compliance With Rules

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Du Plessis

Appellant

Hester Du Plessis

Appellant

Queen Mjwara

Respondent

Dumisani Nene

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct justified the refusal of condonation irrespective of the prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory and detailed explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. Their account of events was vague, particularly regarding their lack of communication with their attorneys over an extended period. The court held that the blame for the delay rested squarely with the applicants and not their attorneys. In line with established principles, condonation may be refused in cases of flagrant breaches of the rules, irrespective of the prospects of success. The cumulative effect of the applicants' conduct and the lack of an acceptable explanation rendered the application for condonation unworthy of...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation and leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered, jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved, to pay the party and party costs of this application.