Magome v Pannar Research Farm (Pty) Ltd and Another (LCC 17/02) [2003] ZALCC 37 (28 August 2003)

Magome v Pannar Research Farm (Pty) Ltd and Another (LCC 17/02) [2003] ZALCC 37 (28 August 2003)

The court found that the delay in noting the appeal and applying for condonation was excessively long and not satisfactorily explained. The applicant failed to account for several periods of inactivity, and the explanations provided were inadequate. Furthermore, the court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal, particularly regarding the necessity of a probation officer's report under section 9(3) of ESTA. The factors set out in United Plant Hire weighed against granting condonation. Accordingly, the application for condonation was refused.

Citation
[2003] ZALCC 37
Parties
Applicant: Kebatladitse Cornelius Magome; Respondent: Pannar Research Farms (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Pannar Research Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2003
Case Number
LCC 17/02
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation for Late Noting of Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation of the late noting of appeal refused.
Judges
Moloto
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Condonation for Late Appeal, Eviction, Probation Officer Report
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Condonation for Late Appeal Eviction Probation Officer Report

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

Kebatladitse Cornelius Magome

Applicant

Pannar Research Farms (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Pannar Research Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation for Late Noting of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in noting the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the necessity of a probation officer's report under section 9(3) of ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in noting the appeal and applying for condonation was excessively long and not satisfactorily explained. The applicant failed to account for several periods of inactivity, and the explanations provided were inadequate. Furthermore, the court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal, particularly regarding the necessity of a probation officer's report under section 9(3) of ESTA. The factors set out in United Plant Hire weighed against granting condonation. Accordingly, the application for condonation was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of the late noting of appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of the late noting of the appeal is refused.
  • No order as to costs.