Mtirara v Landmark Mthatha (Pty) Ltd (607/2007) [2007] ZAECHC 116 (20 December 2007)

Mtirara v Landmark Mthatha (Pty) Ltd (607/2007) [2007] ZAECHC 116 (20 December 2007)

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was granted after considering all relevant factors, including the explanation for the delay and the interests of justice. However, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The court found that the arguments advanced by the applicant regarding the admission of the third respondent's supplementary affidavit and reliance on section 38 of the Constitution were without merit. The costs of two counsel for the third and fifth respondents were justified due to the complexity and novelty of the issues raised in the main application.

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 116
Parties
Applicant: No-Italy Phindiwe Mtirara; Respondent: Landmark Mthatha (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Third Respondent; Respondent: Fifth Respondent
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Case Number
607/2007
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application
Outcome
Application for condonation granted; application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where appropriate.
Judges
X. M. Petse
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Uniform Rules of Court, Costs of Two Counsel
Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Uniform Rules of Court Costs of Two Counsel

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

No-Italy Phindiwe Mtirara

Applicant

Landmark Mthatha (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Fifth Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the costs of two counsel for certain respondents are justified.

Ratio Decidendi

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was granted after considering all relevant factors, including the explanation for the delay and the interests of justice. However, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The court found that the arguments advanced by the applicant regarding the admission of the third respondent's supplementary affidavit and reliance on section 38 of the Constitution were without merit. The costs of two counsel for the third and fifth respondents were justified due to the complexity and novelty of the issues raised in the main application.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted; application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where appropriate.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include, where appropriate, the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.