PJ & ILM Broedery v Lichtenburg Graan Trustees (75/04) [2007] ZANWHC 48 (19 September 2007)

PJ & ILM Broedery v Lichtenburg Graan Trustees (75/04) [2007] ZANWHC 48 (19 September 2007)

The court found that the allegations advanced by the applicant were consistent with the evidence presented in the main application and did not detract from the finding that the applicant did not have a reasonable and bona fide defence. The respondent was confirmed as a creditor of the applicant. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion and, therefore, dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 48
Parties
Applicant: PJ & ILM Boerdery (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Lichtenburg Graan Trustees (Edms) Bpk
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2007
Case Number
75/04
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Provisional Sentence, Liquidation Proceedings
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Provisional Sentence Liquidation Proceedings

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJ & ILM Boerdery (Edms) Bpk

Applicant

Lichtenburg Graan Trustees (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has presented a bona fide defence to the claim of the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the findings in the main application were supported by the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the allegations advanced by the applicant were consistent with the evidence presented in the main application and did not detract from the finding that the applicant did not have a reasonable and bona fide defence. The respondent was confirmed as a creditor of the applicant. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion and, therefore, dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.