Mokhulane Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mukund and Another (23823/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 714 (7 August 2024)

Mokhulane Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mukund and Another (23823/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 714 (7 August 2024)

The court found that the applicants did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal nor any compelling reason for leave to be granted. The previous judgment dismissing the rescission application for lack of a case on condonation was upheld. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 714
Parties
Applicant: Mokhulane Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Sylvester Ayuk Taku; Applicant: Basetsana Winny Taku; Respondent: Veena Ashutosh Mukund Jog; Respondent: Ashutosh Mukund Jog
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2024
Case Number
23823/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Rescission of Judgment

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokhulane Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sylvester Ayuk Taku

Applicant

Basetsana Winny Taku

Applicant

Veena Ashutosh Mukund Jog

Respondent

Ashutosh Mukund Jog

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal the dismissal of the rescission application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal nor any compelling reason for leave to be granted. The previous judgment dismissing the rescission application for lack of a case on condonation was upheld. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the costs of the respondents.