McKonie v Body Corporate, Laborie [2023] ZAGPPHC 477; 58798/2021 (20 June 2023)

McKonie v Body Corporate, Laborie [2023] ZAGPPHC 477; 58798/2021 (20 June 2023)

The court found no objective facts or evidence to support the applicant's request for recusal, as no reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict of interest was established. The alleged complaint to the Judicial Service Commission was unsubstantiated and did not automatically disqualify the judge. Regarding condonation, the applicant was aware of the order and the procedures for appeal but repeatedly failed to act timeously, instead pursuing alternative remedies and complaints that did not justify the delay. The explanation for the delay was found unreasonable and self-inflicted. On the merits of leave to appeal, the grounds advanced were vague, lacked misdirections of law or fact, and...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 477
Parties
Applicant: Babalwa Beryl McKonie; Respondent: The Body Corporate, Laborie
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2023
Case Number
58798/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation Following Final Sequestration Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal is dismissed; costs to be costs in the sequestration.
Judges
Retief
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation for Late Filing, Judicial Recusal, Sequestration, Discretion in Postponement
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation for Late Filing Judicial Recusal Sequestration Discretion in Postponement

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babalwa Beryl McKonie

Applicant

The Body Corporate, Laborie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation Following Final Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse himself due to an alleged complaint by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal against the final sequestration order should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no objective facts or evidence to support the applicant's request for recusal, as no reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict of interest was established. The alleged complaint to the Judicial Service Commission was unsubstantiated and did not automatically disqualify the judge. Regarding condonation, the applicant was aware of the order and the procedures for appeal but repeatedly failed to act timeously, instead pursuing alternative remedies and complaints that did not justify the delay. The explanation for the delay was found unreasonable and self-inflicted. On the merits of leave to appeal, the grounds advanced were vague, lacked misdirections of law or fact, and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is dismissed; costs to be costs in the sequestration.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be costs in the sequestration.