Groenewald and Others v Galloptic Trade and Investment 15 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/0699930) [2024] ZAGPJHC 993 (4 October 2024)

Groenewald and Others v Galloptic Trade and Investment 15 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/0699930) [2024] ZAGPJHC 993 (4 October 2024)

The court found that the applicants' appeal had not lapsed because they complied with Rule 49 by obtaining a written agreement from the first respondent to deliver the appeal record later. The Registrar's instructions regarding uploading documents to CourtOnline were procedural and did not constitute a refusal to accept the application for a hearing date. The subsequent practice directive did not retroactively affect the steps already taken. The first respondent's denial of the agreement was contradicted by documentary evidence. As the appeal remains pending, the eviction was not lawfully executed. The court also determined that factual disputes regarding the third respondent's occupation...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 993
Parties
Applicant: Deon Groenewald; Applicant: Koos Groenewald; Applicant: Unlawful Occupiers of Portion 17 of the Farm Weltevrede No 517, JQ; Respondent: Galloptic Trade & Investments 15 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Sheriff for the District of Krugersdorp; Respondent: Johan Homan
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2024
Case Number
2024/0699930
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Interim Relief and Joinder
Outcome
The appeal has not lapsed; the matter is referred to oral evidence on occupation and restoration; interim access to the property is granted; costs reserved.
Judges
A Bester
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Joinder of Parties, Appeal Lapsing, Restoration of Possession, Oral Evidence, Practice Directives
Civil Procedure Land and Property Eviction Proceedings Joinder of Parties Appeal Lapsing Restoration of Possession Oral Evidence Practice Directives

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deon Groenewald

Applicant

Koos Groenewald

Applicant

Unlawful Occupiers of Portion 17 of the Farm Weltevrede No 517, JQ

Applicant

Galloptic Trade & Investments 15 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Sheriff for the District of Krugersdorp

Respondent

Johan Homan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Interim Relief and Joinder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' appeal under case number 9333/2020 has lapsed.
  2. 2 Whether the third respondent, Mr Homan, is in occupation of the property.
  3. 3 Whether it is possible to restore possession of the property to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' appeal had not lapsed because they complied with Rule 49 by obtaining a written agreement from the first respondent to deliver the appeal record later. The Registrar's instructions regarding uploading documents to CourtOnline were procedural and did not constitute a refusal to accept the application for a hearing date. The subsequent practice directive did not retroactively affect the steps already taken. The first respondent's denial of the agreement was contradicted by documentary evidence. As the appeal remains pending, the eviction was not lawfully executed. The court also determined that factual disputes regarding the third respondent's occupation...

Court Disposition

The appeal has not lapsed; the matter is referred to oral evidence on occupation and restoration; interim access to the property is granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Mr Johan Homan is joined as the third respondent in the application.
  • It is declared that the applicants’ appeal under case number 9333/2020 has not lapsed.