Padongelukkefonds v De Wet (7277/08) [2011] ZAFSHC 163 (20 October 2011)

Padongelukkefonds v De Wet (7277/08) [2011] ZAFSHC 163 (20 October 2011)

The court found that the applicant did not forfeit its right to apply for leave to appeal by waiting until the quantum was determined. The applicant expressly reserved its right to appeal on the merits before the quantum order was made. The application for leave to appeal was therefore not out of time. On the merits, the court held that there are reasonable prospects that another court may find that the respondent did not prove his case against the applicant, as the respondent's version was not corroborated by any other witness, while the applicant's driver was supported by two witnesses. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 163
Parties
Applicant: Padongelukkefonds; Respondent: Jan Hermanus Albertus De Wet
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2011
Case Number
7277/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment on Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the applicant. Costs of the application are costs in the appeal.
Judges
Kruger, R
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Timeliness of Appeal, Costs in Appeal
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Timeliness of Appeal Costs in Appeal

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

Padongelukkefonds

Applicant

Jan Hermanus Albertus De Wet

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment on Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal was timeous in terms of Uniform Rule 49(1)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant forfeited the right to apply for leave to appeal by waiting until after the quantum was determined.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not forfeit its right to apply for leave to appeal by waiting until the quantum was determined. The applicant expressly reserved its right to appeal on the merits before the quantum order was made. The application for leave to appeal was therefore not out of time. On the merits, the court held that there are reasonable prospects that another court may find that the respondent did not prove his case against the applicant, as the respondent's version was not corroborated by any other witness, while the applicant's driver was supported by two witnesses. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the applicant. Costs of the application are costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to appeal to the full bench of this division.
  • Costs of this application are costs in the appeal.