Marschall v Schleyer and Others (32366/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 869 (4 November 2022)

Marschall v Schleyer and Others (32366/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 869 (4 November 2022)

The court found that the respondents failed to raise any new issues in their application for leave to appeal and that all matters had been adequately addressed in the original judgment. The breach of the lease and its valid cancellation were established, and the respondents' justification for non-payment was deemed irrelevant. Applying section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act and the principles from Ramakatsa and related cases, the court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The threshold for granting leave to appeal is now higher and more stringent, and the respondents did not meet this standard. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 869
Parties
Applicant: Franz Marschall; Respondent: Barbara Schleyer; Respondent: Albert Schleyer; Respondent: All other persons holding title to the immovable property situate at 97 Runnymead Avenue, Chartwell, Gauteng, under the control and authority of the first and/or second respondents; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2022
Case Number
32366/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
L R Adams
Legal Topics
Eviction Order, Leave to Appeal, Lis Pendens, Lease Cancellation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Eviction Order Leave to Appeal Lis Pendens Lease Cancellation

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franz Marschall

Applicant

Barbara Schleyer

Respondent

Albert Schleyer

Respondent

All other persons holding title to the immovable property situate at 97 Runnymead Avenue, Chartwell, Gauteng, under the control and authority of the first and/or second respondents

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the eviction order.
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement was validly cancelled due to breach.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' legal point of lis pendens should have been upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to raise any new issues in their application for leave to appeal and that all matters had been adequately addressed in the original judgment. The breach of the lease and its valid cancellation were established, and the respondents' justification for non-payment was deemed irrelevant. Applying section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act and the principles from Ramakatsa and related cases, the court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The threshold for granting leave to appeal is now higher and more stringent, and the respondents did not meet this standard. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • The first, second and third respondents' application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.