Galloptic Trade and Investments 15 (PTY) Ltd v Groenewald and Others (9333/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 741 (4 October 2022)
The court found that, although the notification point was decided in favour of the respondents and the applicant's counsel had indicated that this should conclude the matter, there remained an unresolved issue regarding the right to cancel while reprobating. Since this point was not addressed in the original...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPJHC 741
- Parties
- Applicant: Galloptic Trade & Investments 15 (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Groenewald, Deon; Respondent: Groenewald, Koos; Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers of Portion 17 of the Farm Weltevreden Nr 17; Respondent: Mogale City Local Municipality
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 9333/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the full court of the division. Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
- Judges
- Wepener
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Notification of Parties, Costs in Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Galloptic Trade & Investments 15 (PTY) Ltd
Applicant
Groenewald, Deon
Respondent
Groenewald, Koos
Respondent
The Unlawful Occupiers of Portion 17 of the Farm Weltevreden Nr 17
Respondent
Mogale City Local Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the applicants against the judgment handed down on 20 April 2022.
- 2 Whether the point regarding notification to the appellants was correctly decided.
- 3 Whether the issue of cancelation while reprobating should have been addressed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the notification point was decided in favour of the respondents and the applicant's counsel had indicated that this should conclude the matter, there remained an unresolved issue regarding the right to cancel while reprobating. Since this point was not addressed in the original judgment, and another court may find merit in it, leave to appeal to the full court of the division was granted. Costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full court of the division. Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the full court of this division.
- The costs of the application are to be costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER: 9333/2020
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED:
In the application of:
GALLOPTIC TRADE & INVESTMENTS 15 (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
And
GROENEWALD, DEON
FIRST RESPONDENT
GROENEWALD, KOOS
SECOND RESPONDENT
THE UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS OF PORTION 17
OF THE FARM WELTEVREDEN NR 17
THIRD RESPONDENT
MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
FOURTH RESPONDENT
Coram: Wepener J
Date of hearing: 30 August 2022
Date of Judgment: 4 October 2022
This judgment is made an Order of Court by the Judge whose name is reflected herein, duly stamped by the Registrar of the Court and is submitted electronically to the Parties / their legal representatives by email. The judgment is further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines by the Judge his secretary. The date of this Order is deemed to be 4 October 2022.
JUDGMENT
Wepener, J:
[1] The applicants seek leave to appeal a judgment handed down by me on 20 April 2022. In the judgment I dealt with the point regarding notification that was given to the appellants. Despite the appellant’s counsel advising that if that point is found in the respondents favour, that it should be the end of the battle. There was some mention of aprobating and reprobating and the right to cancel whilst reprobating. I did not deal with this point in the judgment. Another court may find that the point is good.
[2] In the circumstances I grant the applicants leave to appeal to the full court of this division.
[3] The costs of the application are the costs in the appeal.
W.L. Wepener
Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Counsel for the Applicants:
Adv R Bhima
Attorneys for the Applicants:
Swanepoel van Zyl Attorneys
Counsel for the Respondents:
JH van den B Lubbe
Attorneys for the Respondents:
Crawford Legal Practitioners