Nqorile CC and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (Leave to Appeal) [2023] ZAGPPHC 466; 47122/2021 (28 February 2023)

Nqorile CC and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (Leave to Appeal) [2023] ZAGPPHC 466; 47122/2021 (28 February 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to satisfactorily explain the delay for the entire period between 1 March and 22 March 2023, providing only a vague reference to counsel's bereavement without details. The absence of a comprehensive explanation meant the court could not fully understand the default and consequent lateness. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate a bona fide defence or reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as previously addressed in the main judgment. Consequently, the court was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants, and condonation was refused.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 466
Parties
Applicant: Nqorile CC; Applicant: Mokgosi Simphiwe M. M. Pule; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Case Number
47122/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation in Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation refused with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Judicial Discretion

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nqorile CC

Applicant

Mokgosi Simphiwe M. M. Pule

Applicant

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation in Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is satisfactory.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to satisfactorily explain the delay for the entire period between 1 March and 22 March 2023, providing only a vague reference to counsel's bereavement without details. The absence of a comprehensive explanation meant the court could not fully understand the default and consequent lateness. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate a bona fide defence or reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as previously addressed in the main judgment. Consequently, the court was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants, and condonation was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.