Lashaba v Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd and Another (M342/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 77 (2 November 2017)

Lashaba v Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd and Another (M342/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 77 (2 November 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal, with several periods of inactivity not properly accounted for. The order in question was determined to be an interim interdict, not final in effect, as it merely preserved the status quo pending the resolution of the main action regarding ownership. The requirements for condonation and leave to appeal were not met, as there were no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for condonation and leave to appeal was therefore refused, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 77
Parties
Applicant: Andrew Lesiba Shabalala; Respondent: Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Scormin (Pty) Limited
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2017
Case Number
M342/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to respondents.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Appealability of Orders
Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Leave to Appeal Condonation Appealability of Orders

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Lesiba Shabalala

Applicant

Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Scormin (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for the late filing and prosecution of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the order granted on 26 January 2017 is appealable as a final interdict or merely an interim order.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal or other compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal, with several periods of inactivity not properly accounted for. The order in question was determined to be an interim interdict, not final in effect, as it merely preserved the status quo pending the resolution of the main action regarding ownership. The requirements for condonation and leave to appeal were not met, as there were no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for condonation and leave to appeal was therefore refused, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing and prosecution of the application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Full Bench is dismissed.