Ingledew v Thompson and Another [2006] ZAGPHC 254; 33333/07 (17 August 2006)

Ingledew v Thompson and Another [2006] ZAGPHC 254; 33333/07 (17 August 2006)

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects of success in an appeal against either of the previous judgments. The first defendant had, throughout the proceedings, accepted the validity of the agreement with the plaintiff, and the law does not permit a party to both accept and repudiate a contract. The factual findings regarding the essential facts were not reasonably open to challenge, and the legal principles applied were clear and correct according to established precedent. The court was satisfied that its discretion was exercised judicially and that no misdirection occurred.

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 254
Parties
Plaintiff: Norman Ingledew; Defendant: Dimetys Theodosious; Defendant: Caprice Wilson
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2006
Case Number
33333/07
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Two Prior Judgments
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal in respect of both judgments are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Contract Validity, Repudiation, Judicial Discretion, Costs Order
Commercial and Corporate Contract Validity Repudiation Judicial Discretion Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Ingledew

Plaintiff

Dimetys Theodosious

Defendant

Caprice Wilson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Two Prior Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success in an appeal against the judgments delivered on 22 May 2006 and 13 June 2006.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant was valid and binding.
  3. 3 Whether the application of law to the facts was correct and free from misdirection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects of success in an appeal against either of the previous judgments. The first defendant had, throughout the proceedings, accepted the validity of the agreement with the plaintiff, and the law does not permit a party to both accept and repudiate a contract. The factual findings regarding the essential facts were not reasonably open to challenge, and the legal principles applied were clear and correct according to established precedent. The court was satisfied that its discretion was exercised judicially and that no misdirection occurred.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal in respect of both judgments are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The applications for leave to appeal in respect of both the judgment given on 22 May 2006 and 13 June 2006 are dismissed with costs.
  • The costs order includes the costs of two counsel.