Henman v Liberty Group Limited (AR425/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 55 (9 June 2016)

Henman v Liberty Group Limited (AR425/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 55 (9 June 2016)

The court found that the appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay in launching the application for recission. However, guided by authority, the merits of the case were considered. The appellant had made payments that extinguished the arrear rental and ancillary charges, and the respondent should not have sought judgment for those claims. Thus, the judgment was erroneously granted in respect of claims (A), (B), (C), and (D), and recission was warranted for those claims. Regarding claims (E), (F), (G), and (H), relating to damages for holding over and eviction, the appellant failed to provide sufficient particularity or evidence of the alleged agreement or payments...

Citation
[2016] ZAKZPHC 55
Parties
Appellant: Glynn Henman; Respondent: Liberty Group Limited
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2016
Case Number
AR425/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Condonation and Recission Application in the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; recission granted for claims (A), (B), (C), and (D); appeal dismissed for claims (E), (F), (G), and (H); each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
Kruger, Koen
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Recission of Judgment, Suretyship Liability, Arrear Rental, Holding Over Damages
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Condonation for Late Filing Recission of Judgment Suretyship Liability Arrear Rental Holding Over Damages

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glynn Henman

Appellant

Liberty Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Condonation and Recission Application in the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the application for recission.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment was erroneously sought and granted in respect of certain claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay in launching the application for recission. However, guided by authority, the merits of the case were considered. The appellant had made payments that extinguished the arrear rental and ancillary charges, and the respondent should not have sought judgment for those claims. Thus, the judgment was erroneously granted in respect of claims (A), (B), (C), and (D), and recission was warranted for those claims. Regarding claims (E), (F), (G), and (H), relating to damages for holding over and eviction, the appellant failed to provide sufficient particularity or evidence of the alleged agreement or payments...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; recission granted for claims (A), (B), (C), and (D); appeal dismissed for claims (E), (F), (G), and (H); each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The order of the court a quo refusing condonation is set aside.
  • The order of the court a quo dismissing the application for recission in respect of claims (A), (B), (C), and (D) is set aside and the judgment in respect of these claims is rescinded.