Du Preez en 'n Ander v Vennote (22/79) [1984] ZASCA 23 (23 March 1984)

Du Preez en 'n Ander v Vennote (22/79) [1984] ZASCA 23 (23 March 1984)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient reasons for their prolonged delay in bringing the application for condonation. While financial hardship was acknowledged, it did not justify the nearly three and a half year delay, especially as the applicants had previously initiated and then withdrawn a similar application. The applicants did not offer any explanation for their inactivity or for failing to attach a summary of the trial evidence to support their prospects of success. The court emphasized that condonation applications must be brought promptly and that the determination of timing should not be left to the applicant's discretion. Furthermore, the applicants...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 23
Parties
Applicant: Louis James Andrew Du Preez; Applicant: Monica Elizabeth Du Preez; Respondent: Marais Pienaar en Vennote
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 1984
Case Number
22/79
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed.
Judges
Trengove, Viljoen, Galgut
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Filing, Professional Negligence, Burden of Proof, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Delict Condonation of Late Filing Professional Negligence Burden of Proof Prospects of Success

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis James Andrew Du Preez

Applicant

Monica Elizabeth Du Preez

Applicant

Marais Pienaar en Vennote

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for condonation of their failure to file the necessary copies of the record timeously.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application for condonation is excusable.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the trial court's dismissal of the applicants' claim for damages against the respondent for professional negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient reasons for their prolonged delay in bringing the application for condonation. While financial hardship was acknowledged, it did not justify the nearly three and a half year delay, especially as the applicants had previously initiated and then withdrawn a similar application. The applicants did not offer any explanation for their inactivity or for failing to attach a summary of the trial evidence to support their prospects of success. The court emphasized that condonation applications must be brought promptly and that the determination of timing should not be left to the applicant's discretion. Furthermore, the applicants...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for condonation of their failure to comply with rule 5(4) is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is specified.