Molema and Another v Lethamakga Business Enterprises CC (40024/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 955 (26 September 2024)

Molema and Another v Lethamakga Business Enterprises CC (40024/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 955 (26 September 2024)

The court found that the applicants' right to appeal had lapsed because the application for leave to appeal was not filed within the prescribed 15-day period after the summary judgment was granted. The applicants did not bring a substantive application for condonation to revive their lapsed right of appeal. The agreement between attorneys to extend the time for filing did not constitute a valid condonation nor did it revive the right to appeal. The court held that, in the absence of a proper condonation application, there was no valid application for leave to appeal before the court. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was defective and had to be dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 955
Parties
Applicant: Botlhale Molema; Applicant: Leseding Accounting Services CC; Respondent: Lethamakga Business Enterprises CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2024
Case Number
40024/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment and Unsuccessful Rescission
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
PM Mabuse
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal Condonation Service of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Botlhale Molema

Applicant

Leseding Accounting Services CC

Applicant

Lethamakga Business Enterprises CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment and Unsuccessful Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal was properly before the court given the lapse of the prescribed period and absence of a substantive condonation application.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement between attorneys to extend the time for filing revived the applicants' right to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the summary judgment granted by default was susceptible to rescission or only appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' right to appeal had lapsed because the application for leave to appeal was not filed within the prescribed 15-day period after the summary judgment was granted. The applicants did not bring a substantive application for condonation to revive their lapsed right of appeal. The agreement between attorneys to extend the time for filing did not constitute a valid condonation nor did it revive the right to appeal. The court held that, in the absence of a proper condonation application, there was no valid application for leave to appeal before the court. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was defective and had to be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed, with costs.