Plaatjie NO and Another v Matsepe NO (A154/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 88 (6 June 2019)

Plaatjie NO and Another v Matsepe NO (A154/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 88 (6 June 2019)

The court found that the appellants failed to comply with the procedural rules for prosecuting the appeal and provided no adequate explanation for the inordinate delay of approximately ten months. The only affidavit in support of condonation was from their attorney, with no direct explanation from the appellants....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 88
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Tefo Plaatjie N.O.; Appellant: Marea Maoseka Plaatjie N.O.; Respondent: Tsiu Vincent Matsepe N.O.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2019
Case Number
A154/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation and Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
P J Loubser, C J Musi, M N Mbhele
Legal Topics
Condonation, Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal, Interpretation of Contract, Acknowledgement of Debt
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Condonation Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal Interpretation of Contract Acknowledgement of Debt

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Tefo Plaatjie N.O.

Appellant

Marea Maoseka Plaatjie N.O.

Appellant

Tsiu Vincent Matsepe N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation and Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether condonation and reinstatement of the lapsed appeal should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the interpretation of clause 7 of the Acknowledgement of Debt was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to comply with the procedural rules for prosecuting the appeal and provided no adequate explanation for the inordinate delay of approximately ten months. The only affidavit in support of condonation was from their attorney, with no direct explanation from the appellants. The principles of condonation require a detailed and satisfactory account of the delay, which was lacking. The court held that, in such circumstances, the prospects of success on the merits are irrelevant. Even if considered, the appellants did not demonstrate good prospects of success regarding the interpretation of clause 7 of the Acknowledgement of Debt. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation and for the reinstatement of the appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicants for condonation are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the respondent in opposing the lapsed appeal.