Figures and CO (Pty) Ltd and Others v Urban Real Estate (Pty) Ltd (2021/45109) [2022] ZAGPJHC 381 (6 June 2022)
The court held that the tenants failed to comply with Rule 49(6)(a) within the prescribed period, resulting in the appeal being deemed to have lapsed. The effect of the deemed lapse is the termination of the suspension of the eviction order, entitling the landlord to execute the original judgment. The argument that the 10-day period benefits the applicants was rejected, as the rule clearly provides it for the respondent. The court found no conflict with other decisions, and authorities cited confirm that lapsing terminates suspension. Reinstatement of the appeal requires a substantive application for condonation before the appeal court, which had not been brought. Constitutional and...
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPJHC 381
- Parties
- Applicant: Figures & Co (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Aisha Beauty Cosmetics & Fabrics (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Azan Electronics & General Dealers (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Gizos General Trading CC; Applicant: Mazuru B; Applicant: Nala Originals (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Alia Construction (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Ding Dong Cellular Trading (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Raj Shah Trading Enterprise and Projects (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Wig Network (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Those Facilitating the Occupation of Shops at Oriental Plaza/Republic Place; Respondent: Urban Real Estate (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 6 June 2022
- Case Number
- 2021/45109
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Applications
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal is dismissed.
- Judges
- N Manoim
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Suspension of Execution, Rule 49 Compliance, Eviction Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Figures & Co (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Aisha Beauty Cosmetics & Fabrics (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Azan Electronics & General Dealers (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Gizos General Trading CC
Applicant
Mazuru B
Applicant
Nala Originals (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Alia Construction (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Ding Dong Cellular Trading (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Raj Shah Trading Enterprise and Projects (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Wig Network (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Those Facilitating the Occupation of Shops at Oriental Plaza/Republic Place
Applicant
Urban Real Estate (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal by the tenants had lapsed due to non-compliance with Rule 49(6)(a).
- 2 Whether the suspension of the eviction order remained operative after the deemed lapse of the appeal.
- 3 Whether the issue of lapsing is for the appeal court or the court a quo to decide.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the tenants failed to comply with Rule 49(6)(a) within the prescribed period, resulting in the appeal being deemed to have lapsed. The effect of the deemed lapse is the termination of the suspension of the eviction order, entitling the landlord to execute the original judgment. The argument that the 10-day period benefits the applicants was rejected, as the rule clearly provides it for the respondent. The court found no conflict with other decisions, and authorities cited confirm that lapsing terminates suspension. Reinstatement of the appeal requires a substantive application for condonation before the appeal court, which had not been brought. Constitutional and...
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal is dismissed.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is dismissed.
- Costs are reserved for the court of appeal to decide if the appeal is reinstated in terms of Rule 46(9)(b).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment