Leslie v Viana and Another (6673/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 80 (13 March 2024)

Leslie v Viana and Another (6673/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 80 (13 March 2024)

The court found that the first respondent failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The interdictory relief was moot as the respondent had vacated the property, and no order remained to be appealed. The costs order was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, and no exceptional circumstances were alleged or proven to justify leave to appeal on costs. The lease agreement contractually entitled the applicant to costs on an attorney and client scale. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAWCHC 80
Parties
Applicant: Barbara Jill Leslie; Respondent: Rogerio Viana; Respondent: All Other Unlawful Occupiers of Sections […] and 1[…] of the Sectional Scheme M[…] C[…] Flats (SS No. 7/1979), Camps Bay; Respondent: The City of Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2024
Case Number
6673/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Arrear Rental and Costs
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Holderness
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Threshold, Costs Award Discretion, Eviction Proceedings, Contractual Costs Liability
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Threshold Costs Award Discretion Eviction Proceedings Contractual Costs Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Jill Leslie

Applicant

Rogerio Viana

Respondent

All Other Unlawful Occupiers of Sections […] and 1[…] of the Sectional Scheme M[…] C[…] Flats (SS No. 7/1979), Camps Bay

Respondent

The City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Arrear Rental and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent has met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is an appealable order regarding interdictory relief.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify leave to appeal the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The interdictory relief was moot as the respondent had vacated the property, and no order remained to be appealed. The costs order was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, and no exceptional circumstances were alleged or proven to justify leave to appeal on costs. The lease agreement contractually entitled the applicant to costs on an attorney and client scale. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.