Ngququ N.O v Steyn (4133/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 481 (7 December 2023)

Ngququ N.O v Steyn (4133/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 481 (7 December 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to make a proper case for condonation, as the explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was neither reasonable nor acceptable. The applicant became aware of the personal costs order upon receipt of the variation order, but this did not justify the delay. The court dismissed the application for condonation and the application for leave to appeal the January 2023 order and judgment. However, the court granted leave to appeal the variation order of June 2023 to the full bench, as the applicant may not have been afforded audi alteram partem regarding the costs order in his personal capacity.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 481
Parties
Applicant: Zwelibanzi William Ngququ N.O.; Respondent: Dane Steyn
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2023
Case Number
4133/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal; Variation Order
Outcome
Condonation and leave to appeal the January 2023 order and judgment are dismissed. Leave to appeal the variation order of June 2023 is granted to the full bench.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Variation of Order, Costs Order, Administration of Estates, Audi Alteram Partem
Civil Procedure Land and Property Condonation Leave to Appeal Variation of Order Costs Order Administration of Estates Audi Alteram Partem

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zwelibanzi William Ngququ N.O.

Applicant

Dane Steyn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal; Variation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal the January 2023 order and judgment should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal the variation order of June 2023 should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make a proper case for condonation, as the explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was neither reasonable nor acceptable. The applicant became aware of the personal costs order upon receipt of the variation order, but this did not justify the delay. The court dismissed the application for condonation and the application for leave to appeal the January 2023 order and judgment. However, the court granted leave to appeal the variation order of June 2023 to the full bench, as the applicant may not have been afforded audi alteram partem regarding the costs order in his personal capacity.

Court Disposition

Condonation and leave to appeal the January 2023 order and judgment are dismissed. Leave to appeal the variation order of June 2023 is granted to the full bench.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for leave to appeal the order and judgment delivered in January 2023 is dismissed.