Du Plooy and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (UM197/2021) [2022] ZANWHC 40 (7 October 2022)

Du Plooy and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (UM197/2021) [2022] ZANWHC 40 (7 October 2022)

The application for leave to appeal fails because the interim order relied upon by the applicants was conditional, obtained ex parte, and subsequently replaced by another interim order which is not appealable. The applicants defaulted on payment for electricity, admitted liability, and tampered with the meter, which justifies summary termination of supply. No prima facie right to relief was established. There are no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. The court exercised its discretion to refuse leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent, including those for senior counsel.

Citation
[2022] ZANWHC 40
Parties
Applicant: Cornelia Catherina Du Plooy; Applicant: Petrus Van Zyl; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 October 2022
Case Number
UM197/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. Costs awarded to the respondent, including costs for senior counsel.
Judges
R.D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interim Orders, Electricity Supply, Tampering and Vandalism, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Interim Orders Electricity Supply Tampering and Vandalism Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelia Catherina Du Plooy

Applicant

Petrus Van Zyl

Applicant

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to leave to appeal against the main judgment and order.
  2. 2 Whether the interim order granted by Lephadi AJ confers enforceable rights on the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal fails because the interim order relied upon by the applicants was conditional, obtained ex parte, and subsequently replaced by another interim order which is not appealable. The applicants defaulted on payment for electricity, admitted liability, and tampered with the meter, which justifies summary termination of supply. No prima facie right to relief was established. There are no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. The court exercised its discretion to refuse leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent, including those for senior counsel.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. Costs awarded to the respondent, including costs for senior counsel.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to either the Full Court of this Division or the Supreme Court of Appeal is refused.
  • The applicants as Trustees of the KJT Trust are ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal on a party and party basis, including costs consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.