Knowledge Objects Healthcare (Pty) Ltd v Inani Prop Holding (Leave to Appeal) (2024/014083) [2025] ZAGPPHC 537 (28 May 2025)

Knowledge Objects Healthcare (Pty) Ltd v Inani Prop Holding (Leave to Appeal) (2024/014083) [2025] ZAGPPHC 537 (28 May 2025)

The court found that the affidavit deposed by Mr Ramsamy on behalf of the respondent complied with Rule 32(2)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The deponent's position and statements in the affidavit were sufficient to establish personal knowledge of the facts, the cause of action, and the amount claimed. The court distinguished the FirstRand Bank Ltd v Beyers precedent, noting that the facts in Beyers were materially different and did not apply to the present matter. The court held that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and that the application was based on technicalities rather than substantive merit. Accordingly, leave...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 537
Parties
Applicant: Knowledge Objects Healthcare (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Inani Prop Holding
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2025
Case Number
2024/014083
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lesufi
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Rule 32 Uniform Rules, Lease Agreement, Personal Knowledge Affidavit, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Rule 32 Uniform Rules Lease Agreement Personal Knowledge Affidavit 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Knowledge Objects Healthcare (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Inani Prop Holding

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit supporting summary judgment complied with Rule 32(2)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the deponent had sufficient personal knowledge of the facts to verify the cause of action and amount claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds for leave to appeal demonstrate reasonable prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the affidavit deposed by Mr Ramsamy on behalf of the respondent complied with Rule 32(2)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The deponent's position and statements in the affidavit were sufficient to establish personal knowledge of the facts, the cause of action, and the amount claimed. The court distinguished the FirstRand Bank Ltd v Beyers precedent, noting that the facts in Beyers were materially different and did not apply to the present matter. The court held that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and that the application was based on technicalities rather than substantive merit. Accordingly, leave...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay costs on Scale A.