Robbertze v Boss Scaffolding and Access Solutions (Pty) Ltd (88056/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 28 (15 January 2024)

Robbertze v Boss Scaffolding and Access Solutions (Pty) Ltd (88056/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 28 (15 January 2024)

The court held that the application for leave to appeal was brought before the wrong court, as the proper forum to consider leave to appeal against the security for costs order was the court that made the original order. The rescission application did not fall within the ambit of Rule 42, as there was no patent error or ambiguity in the order of Rangata AJ. Furthermore, the rescission application was not accompanied by an application for condonation, and the delay was not adequately explained. The applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs on an...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Christiaan Johannes Robbertze; Respondent: Boss Scaffolding and Access Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 January 2024
Case Number
88056/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Selby Baqwa
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rescission of Judgment, Security for Costs, Condonation, Rule 42 Uniform Rules
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Rescission of Judgment Security for Costs Condonation Rule 42 Uniform Rules

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christiaan Johannes Robbertze

Applicant

Boss Scaffolding and Access Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal is properly before this court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the rescission application was correctly dismissed for lack of condonation and absence of patent error under Rule 42.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for leave to appeal was brought before the wrong court, as the proper forum to consider leave to appeal against the security for costs order was the court that made the original order. The rescission application did not fall within the ambit of Rule 42, as there was no patent error or ambiguity in the order of Rangata AJ. Furthermore, the rescission application was not accompanied by an application for condonation, and the delay was not adequately explained. The applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs on an...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale.