Lewis NO and Others v Cooper NO and Another, Lewis v Soundprops 236 (Pty) Ltd and Others (11292/08, 14889/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 51 (27 February 2009)

Lewis NO and Others v Cooper NO and Another, Lewis v Soundprops 236 (Pty) Ltd and Others (11292/08, 14889/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 51 (27 February 2009)

The application for leave to appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 49(1)(b), as the grounds of appeal are not clearly and succinctly set out. While some leeway is afforded to lay litigants, the refusal to grant a postponement is not a valid ground of appeal in the absence of demonstrated prejudice or impact on the outcome. The arguments regarding the heads of agreement being ultra vires and breach of agreement lack merit and contradict the applicants' previous stance. New grounds raised at the hearing are not considered, as they were not previously pleaded or argued, and entertaining them would prejudice the respondents. The interpretation of clause 21.5 of the...

Citation
[2009] ZAWCHC 51
Parties
Applicant: Justin Rory McKenzie Lewis N.O.; Applicant: Justin Rory McKenzie Lewis; Applicant: Robert William Semple; Applicant: Cornelia Lewis; Respondent: Peter Cooper N.O.; Respondent: The Trustees for the Time Being of the Helderfontein Farming Trust; Respondent: Soundprops 236 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gesina Christina Cooper N.O.; Respondent: Fredrick Stiglingh Human N.O.
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2009
Case Number
11292/08, 14889/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
P B Fourie
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Requirements, Ultra Vires Contracts, Postponement of Proceedings, Interpretation of Trust Deed
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Requirements Ultra Vires Contracts Postponement of Proceedings Interpretation of Trust Deed

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justin Rory McKenzie Lewis N.O.

Applicant

Justin Rory McKenzie Lewis

Applicant

Robert William Semple

Applicant

Cornelia Lewis

Applicant

Peter Cooper N.O.

Respondent

The Trustees for the Time Being of the Helderfontein Farming Trust

Respondent

Soundprops 236 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Gesina Christina Cooper N.O.

Respondent

Fredrick Stiglingh Human N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal complies with Rule 49(1)(b).
  2. 2 Whether refusal to grant a postponement constitutes a valid ground of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the heads of agreement were ultra vires and thus void.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 49(1)(b), as the grounds of appeal are not clearly and succinctly set out. While some leeway is afforded to lay litigants, the refusal to grant a postponement is not a valid ground of appeal in the absence of demonstrated prejudice or impact on the outcome. The arguments regarding the heads of agreement being ultra vires and breach of agreement lack merit and contradict the applicants' previous stance. New grounds raised at the hearing are not considered, as they were not previously pleaded or argued, and entertaining them would prejudice the respondents. The interpretation of clause 21.5 of the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal in case numbers 11292/08 and 14889/08 is refused with costs.