Osborne v Erasmus and Others (90835/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 220 (12 March 2021)

Osborne v Erasmus and Others (90835/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 220 (12 March 2021)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's non-compliance with the rules and practice directives, specifically the failure to file the application within the prescribed period and the absence of a condonation application. The grounds for leave to appeal were vague, lacked legal and factual substance, and did not adequately inform the court or respondent of the case to be met. The appellant's denial of occupation was unsubstantiated and did not create a bona fide dispute of fact. The court found no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no compelling reasons for leave to be granted. The appellant's conduct warranted a punitive costs order.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 220
Parties
Applicant: Allan Francis Osborne; Respondent: Ettiene Erasmus; Respondent: All occupiers of Number 8[...] A[...] Drive, Fourways, Johannesburg, Gauteng (Also Known as ERF 1[...], Fourways Township, Registration Division l.Q. Province of Gauteng); Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Case Number
90835/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against appellant on attorney and own client scale.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Eviction Order, Pie Act Compliance, Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Order Pie Act Compliance Leave to Appeal Condonation Costs Award

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Francis Osborne

Applicant

Ettiene Erasmus

Respondent

All occupiers of Number 8[...] A[...] Drive, Fourways, Johannesburg, Gauteng (Also Known as ERF 1[...], Fourways Township, Registration Division l.Q. Province of Gauteng)

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant complied with the rules and practice directives for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding the eviction order.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's grounds for leave to appeal are sufficiently particularized and substantiated.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's non-compliance with the rules and practice directives, specifically the failure to file the application within the prescribed period and the absence of a condonation application. The grounds for leave to appeal were vague, lacked legal and factual substance, and did not adequately inform the court or respondent of the case to be met. The appellant's denial of occupation was unsubstantiated and did not create a bona fide dispute of fact. The court found no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no compelling reasons for leave to be granted. The appellant's conduct warranted a punitive costs order.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against appellant on attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a scale as between attorney and own client.