Nkomazi Munisipaliteit v Kelders (A63/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 182 (2 April 2009)

Nkomazi Munisipaliteit v Kelders (A63/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 182 (2 April 2009)

The court found that interest at 15.5% was specifically claimed in the particulars of claim, contrary to the appellant's assertion. The respondent conceded that interest should run from August 2006, when the amount became due, rather than from the date of summons. The court held that the grounds raised by the appellant had already been dealt with in the previous judgment and that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and each party was ordered to pay their own costs, including reserved costs.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 182
Parties
Appellant: Nkomazi Munisipaliteit; Respondent: Kelders S J J
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 April 2009
Case Number
A63/07
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Legodi, Makgoka
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interest on Judgment Debt, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interest on Judgment Debt Costs Order

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

Parties

Nkomazi Munisipaliteit

Appellant

Kelders S J J

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in ordering the appellant to pay interest when interest was allegedly not claimed in the particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in ordering interest from the date of summons rather than from when the amount became due.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the interest and costs orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that interest at 15.5% was specifically claimed in the particulars of claim, contrary to the appellant's assertion. The respondent conceded that interest should run from August 2006, when the amount became due, rather than from the date of summons. The court held that the grounds raised by the appellant had already been dealt with in the previous judgment and that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and each party was ordered to pay their own costs, including reserved costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • Each party to pay their own costs, including reserved costs occasioned on 13 February 2009.