Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd v Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd and Others (26234/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 291 (18 April 2024)

Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd v Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd and Others (26234/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 291 (18 April 2024)

The court found that Set Square's application for leave to appeal was directed only at the dismissed claims and the costs order, not at the order for payment in its favour. Power's application for leave to cross appeal was neither formally moved nor granted, and no condonation for late delivery was sought. The requirements for an interim interdict were not satisfied, as Power failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought. The order granting leave to appeal referred solely to Set Square's application, and Power's application for leave to cross appeal is no longer pending. Accordingly, there is no basis to stay execution of the judgment in favour of Set Square.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 291
Parties
Applicant: Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Vahwa Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court (Johannesburg South)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 April 2024
Case Number
26234/2021
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application to Stay Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
G S Myburgh
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal, Interim Interdict, Condonation, Performance Bond
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Interim Interdict Condonation Performance Bond

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

Parties

Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Vahwa Construction (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sheriff of the High Court (Johannesburg South)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application to Stay Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution of the judgment in favour of Set Square should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd's application for leave to cross appeal was properly before the court and remains pending.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict to stay execution are satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Set Square's application for leave to appeal was directed only at the dismissed claims and the costs order, not at the order for payment in its favour. Power's application for leave to cross appeal was neither formally moved nor granted, and no condonation for late delivery was sought. The requirements for an interim interdict were not satisfied, as Power failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought. The order granting leave to appeal referred solely to Set Square's application, and Power's application for leave to cross appeal is no longer pending. Accordingly, there is no basis to stay execution of the judgment in favour of Set Square.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to stay execution is dismissed with costs.