Jennings v Cotterel N.O and Others (5091/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 129 (17 December 2019)
The court found that the applicant's assertions regarding payment and the passing of ownership were wholly insufficient to defeat the respondents' claim based on the rei vindicatio. The allegations did not raise any genuine or bona fide disputes of fact regarding whether the respondents had established all the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] ZAECGHC 129
- Parties
- Applicant: Thabo Jennings; Respondent: Cotterel N.O.; Respondent: Russel Ian Grigg N.O.; Respondent: Anita Bhika N.O.
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 5091/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Main Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- J.E Smith
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Rei Vindicatio, Dispute of Fact, Passing of Ownership
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thabo Jennings
Applicant
Cotterel N.O.
Respondent
Russel Ian Grigg N.O.
Respondent
Anita Bhika N.O.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Main Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of his defence to the respondents' rei vindicatio claim.
- 2 Whether the applicant's averments raised bona fide disputes of fact sufficient to defeat the respondents' claim for vindicatory relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's assertions regarding payment and the passing of ownership were wholly insufficient to defeat the respondents' claim based on the rei vindicatio. The allegations did not raise any genuine or bona fide disputes of fact regarding whether the respondents had established all the requisites for vindicatory relief on a balance of probabilities. Consequently, the court held that there were no prospects of another court finding differently and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN)
CASE NO.: 5091/2017
In the matter between:
THABO JENNINGS
APPLICANT
And
COTTEREL N.O.
FIRST RESPONDENT
RUSSEL IAN GRIGG N.O.
SECOND RESPONDENT
ANITA BHIKA N.O.
THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
SMITH J:
[1] The applicant, who was the respondent in the main application, seeks leave to appeal against my judgment delivered on 24 October 2019.
[2] The application is based on various grounds which I do not intend to traverse here. Suffice it to say that the main thrust of the applicant’s criticism against my findings is that I have erred in holding that the averments put up by him did not raise bona fide disputes of fact.
[3] I have given extensive reasons in my judgment for that finding and do not intend to repeat them. Suffice it to say that the applicant’s assertions regarding payment and passing of ownership were wholly insufficient to defeat the respondents’ claim based on the rei vindicatio. The allegations put up by him also did not raise any genuine and bona fide disputes regarding the core issue which fell for decision;
namely whether the respondents had established all the requisites for vindicatory relief on a balance of probabilities.
[4] I do not believe that there are any prospects of another court finding differently. In the result the following order issues:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
__________________________
J.E SMITH
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
Counsel for the Applicant
: Adv. Miller
Attorneys for the Applicant
: Netteltons Attorneys
118A High Street
Grahamstown
6139
Counsel for the Respondents : Adv. Watt
Attorneys for the Respondents : Whitesides Attorneys
53 African Street
Date Heard
: 12/12/2019
Date Delivered
: 17/12/2019