Matthys v Heroldt's Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd (2277/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 138 (13 May 2021)

Matthys v Heroldt's Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd (2277/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 138 (13 May 2021)

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the leave to appeal application, particularly considering the challenges with legal representation, administrative difficulties in accessing the court file, and the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown. Accordingly, condonation was granted. However, on the merits of the leave to appeal, the court held that the applicant failed to meet the raised threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The grounds for appeal were largely a repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the summary judgment. The alleged error in the date of the suretyship contract...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 138
Parties
Applicant: Isaac Jon-Jon Wladimore Matthys; Respondent: Heroldt's Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2021
Case Number
2277/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment; Condonation Application Considered and Granted; Leave to Appeal Dismissed.
Outcome
Condonation granted; application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Summary Judgment, Prospects of Success, Suretyship
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Summary Judgment Prospects of Success Suretyship

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Jon-Jon Wladimore Matthys

Applicant

Heroldt's Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment; Condonation Application Considered and Granted; Leave to Appeal Dismissed.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for late filing of the leave to appeal application should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the summary judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged error in the date of the suretyship contract affects the applicant's indebtedness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the leave to appeal application, particularly considering the challenges with legal representation, administrative difficulties in accessing the court file, and the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown. Accordingly, condonation was granted. However, on the merits of the leave to appeal, the court held that the applicant failed to meet the raised threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The grounds for appeal were largely a repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the summary judgment. The alleged error in the date of the suretyship contract...

Court Disposition

Condonation granted; application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted with costs.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.