Intelligent PI (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tukei and Another (48358/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 48 (10 February 2022)

Intelligent PI (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tukei and Another (48358/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 48 (10 February 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay in seeking relief and did not demonstrate any merit in the contemplated appeal. The grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal merely repeated arguments previously rejected and did not raise any novel issues. The court held that there were no prospects that another court would overturn the refusal to stay the eviction order. The application for leave to appeal was deemed a tactic to delay eviction, justifying an award of costs on the attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Intelligent PI (Pty) Ltd & Others; Respondent: Keith Geoffrey Tukei; Respondent: Bridget Kirungi Tukei
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2022
Case Number
48358/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Eviction Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Roland Sutherland
Legal Topics
Stay of Eviction, Leave to Appeal, Discretion of Court, Costs on Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Stay of Eviction Leave to Appeal Discretion of Court Costs on Attorney and Client Scale

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Intelligent PI (Pty) Ltd & Others

Applicant

Keith Geoffrey Tukei

Respondent

Bridget Kirungi Tukei

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the refusal to stay an eviction order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a proper explanation for the delay in seeking relief and the merits of the contemplated appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of judicial discretion was inappropriate or violated constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay in seeking relief and did not demonstrate any merit in the contemplated appeal. The grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal merely repeated arguments previously rejected and did not raise any novel issues. The court held that there were no prospects that another court would overturn the refusal to stay the eviction order. The application for leave to appeal was deemed a tactic to delay eviction, justifying an award of costs on the attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the applicant on the attorney and client scale.