Kuduskop Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Venter (75594/2013) [2022] ZAGPPHC 529 (18 July 2022)
The court found that the evidence presented by the applicant was uncontroverted and that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find the delay in rendering the account unreasonable or that the special plea should have been upheld. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPPHC 529
- Parties
- Applicant: Kuduskop Estate (Pty) Ltd + 7 Others; Respondent: Jan Adriaan Venter
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 75594/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
- Judges
- Davis
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Special Plea, Delay in Account Rendering
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kuduskop Estate (Pty) Ltd + 7 Others
Applicant
Jan Adriaan Venter
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would find the plaintiff's delay in rendering his account unreasonable.
- 2 Whether there are other grounds on which the special plea should have been upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the evidence presented by the applicant was uncontroverted and that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find the delay in rendering the account unreasonable or that the special plea should have been upheld. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO:75594/2013
DATE: 2022-05-27
REPORTABLE: NO.
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
REVISED. YES
18 JULY 2022
In the matter between
KUDUSKOP ESTATE (PTY) LTD + 7 OTHERS Applicant
and
JAN ADRIAAN VENTER
Respondent
JUDGMENT
DAVIS J
In view of the uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that another Court would find that the plaintiff’s delay in rendering his account was unreasonable, or that there are other grounds on which the special
plea should have been upheld. The order is then that the application for Leave to Appeal is refused with costs.
MR VENTER: May it please Your Lordship.
MS SCHOEMAN: May it please you, M'Lord.
COURT: Court will adjourn.
COURT ADJOURNS
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE SIGNED: 18 JULY 2022