Rachuene and Another v Business Partners Limited [2023] ZAGPPHC 427; 61512/2018 (26 April 2023)

Rachuene and Another v Business Partners Limited [2023] ZAGPPHC 427; 61512/2018 (26 April 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal and did not address the factors required for condonation. The applicant's status as a layperson and the complexity of litigation were not sufficient reasons for condonation. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that judicial oversight had been properly exercised in the original judgment. Consequently, condonation was refused and leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 427
Parties
Applicant: Kgoane Frank Rachuene; Applicant: Malete Winnie Rachuene; Respondent: Business Partners Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2023
Case Number
61512/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Khwinana ENB
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Prospects of Success, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Prospects of Success Judicial Discretion

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgoane Frank Rachuene

Applicant

Malete Winnie Rachuene

Applicant

Business Partners Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment/order of 16 September 2022.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal and did not address the factors required for condonation. The applicant's status as a layperson and the complexity of litigation were not sufficient reasons for condonation. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that judicial oversight had been properly exercised in the original judgment. Consequently, condonation was refused and leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of the application for leave to appeal is not condoned.
  • The applicant’s leave to appeal the whole of the judgment/order is dismissed.