Laubscher and Another v Bezuidenhout (A889/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1204 (15 November 2016)

Laubscher and Another v Bezuidenhout (A889/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1204 (15 November 2016)

The court found that the appellants experienced genuine difficulties in obtaining the correct record from the transcribers and demonstrated a desire to prosecute the appeal. However, the application for condonation related to the filing of an incorrect record, which was irrelevant and unnecessary for the appeal. The court held that it cannot condone the filing of irrelevant documents and that condonation for the late filing of the correct record requires a proper application, which was not before the court. The respondent's application for postponement was rendered moot. Accordingly, the application for condonation of the filing of the incorrect record was refused with costs.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1204
Parties
Appellant: Christine Elizabeth Laubscher; Appellant: Maria Petronella Coetzer; Respondent: Tanya Bezuidenhout
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Case Number
A889/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Court Judgment; Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Record and Opposition to Postponement
Outcome
Application for condonation of the filing of the incorrect record is refused with costs.
Judges
SS Mphahlele, EM Kubushi
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Appeal Record, Uniform Rule 50, Postponement of Hearing
Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Appeal Record Uniform Rule 50 Postponement of Hearing

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Elizabeth Laubscher

Appellant

Maria Petronella Coetzer

Appellant

Tanya Bezuidenhout

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Court Judgment; Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Record and Opposition to Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the incorrect appeal record.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was prejudiced by the late filing of the record.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants took reasonable steps to comply with Rule 50.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants experienced genuine difficulties in obtaining the correct record from the transcribers and demonstrated a desire to prosecute the appeal. However, the application for condonation related to the filing of an incorrect record, which was irrelevant and unnecessary for the appeal. The court held that it cannot condone the filing of irrelevant documents and that condonation for the late filing of the correct record requires a proper application, which was not before the court. The respondent's application for postponement was rendered moot. Accordingly, the application for condonation of the filing of the incorrect record was refused with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of the filing of the incorrect record is refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of the filing of the incorrect record is refused with costs.