Nndwammbi and Others v Pollock N.O and Others (Leave to Appeal) (56445/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 150 (13 February 2025)

Nndwammbi and Others v Pollock N.O and Others (Leave to Appeal) (56445/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 150 (13 February 2025)

The applicants failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. There are no reasonable prospects of success, no compelling reasons, and no conflicting judgments requiring consideration. The applicants' absence from the hearing and failure to comply with practice directives further demonstrate a lack of diligence and respect for court process. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and costs are awarded against the applicants on an attorney and own client scale.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 150
Parties
Applicant: Rudzani Morris Nndwammbi; Applicant: Parallel Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Thifhelimbilu Ernest Nesane; Respondent: Richard Keay Pollock N.O; Respondent: Nurjehan Abdool Gafaar Omar N.O; Respondent: Oscar Jabulani Sithole N.O; Respondent: Ignatius Clement Mikateko Shirilele N.O; Respondent: Michelle Schutte N.O; Respondent: Vele Investments (Pty) Limited (in liquidation)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Case Number
56445/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order of 07 November 2024.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. Costs awarded against the applicants on an attorney and own client scale.
Judges
John Richard Meaden
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Costs Award, Superior Courts Act, Practice Directives
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Costs Award Superior Courts Act Practice Directives

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudzani Morris Nndwammbi

Applicant

Parallel Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Thifhelimbilu Ernest Nesane

Applicant

Richard Keay Pollock N.O

Respondent

Nurjehan Abdool Gafaar Omar N.O

Respondent

Oscar Jabulani Sithole N.O

Respondent

Ignatius Clement Mikateko Shirilele N.O

Respondent

Michelle Schutte N.O

Respondent

Vele Investments (Pty) Limited (in liquidation)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order of 07 November 2024.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons or conflicting judgments justifying leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct in the proceedings affects the disposition of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. There are no reasonable prospects of success, no compelling reasons, and no conflicting judgments requiring consideration. The applicants' absence from the hearing and failure to comply with practice directives further demonstrate a lack of diligence and respect for court process. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and costs are awarded against the applicants on an attorney and own client scale.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. Costs awarded against the applicants on an attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal the order and judgment of 07 November 2024 is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application on an attorney and own client scale, including that of legal counsel at scale B.