Louwsrivier Plase (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van der Vendt and Others; In Re: Van der Vendt and Another v Louwsrivier Plase (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC105/2011) [2020] ZALCC 6 (23 June 2020)

Louwsrivier Plase (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van der Vendt and Others; In Re: Van der Vendt and Another v Louwsrivier Plase (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC105/2011) [2020] ZALCC 6 (23 June 2020)

The application for leave to appeal was filed more than sixteen months after the amended judgment and over four years after the original judgment, without any application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The applicants failed to comply with Rule 69(1)(b) of the Rules of the Land Claims Court, which requires such applications to be filed within 15 days of the judgment. The court found that the absence of any condonation application or explanation for the delay was fatal to the application. Furthermore, the respondents did not oppose the application, but the interests of justice require finality in litigation, especially in a matter that has been pending for many years....

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 6
Parties
Applicant: Louwsrivier Plase (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: JD Kirsten (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Eric Van der Vendt; Respondent: Edwina Van der Vendt; Respondent: Drakenstein Municipality; Respondent: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2020
Case Number
LCC105/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
E Bertelsmann
Legal Topics
Eviction Under Esta, Leave to Appeal, Condonation for Late Filing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Under Esta Leave to Appeal Condonation for Late Filing

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

Louwsrivier Plase (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

JD Kirsten (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Eric Van der Vendt

Respondent

Edwina Van der Vendt

Respondent

Drakenstein Municipality

Respondent

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal was filed within the prescribed time period.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the matter to be prolonged further.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was filed more than sixteen months after the amended judgment and over four years after the original judgment, without any application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The applicants failed to comply with Rule 69(1)(b) of the Rules of the Land Claims Court, which requires such applications to be filed within 15 days of the judgment. The court found that the absence of any condonation application or explanation for the delay was fatal to the application. Furthermore, the respondents did not oppose the application, but the interests of justice require finality in litigation, especially in a matter that has been pending for many years....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.