S A Transit Service CC v iCollege Pty Ltd (38592/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 63 (14 February 2022)

S A Transit Service CC v iCollege Pty Ltd (38592/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 63 (14 February 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to file a formal application for condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal. The affidavit submitted by the applicant's attorney was merely an explanation and did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Uniform Rules of Court, as it was not accompanied by a notice of motion indicating the relief sought. Without a valid condonation application, the court was precluded from entertaining the application for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application was removed from the roll with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 63
Parties
Applicant: S A Transit Services CC; Respondent: iCollege Pty Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2022
Case Number
38592/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rule 27 Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal removed from the roll with costs.
Judges
E.M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Uniform Rule 27, Notice of Bar, Authority to Act, Application for Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Uniform Rule 27 Notice of Bar Authority to Act Application for Leave to Appeal

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S A Transit Services CC

Applicant

iCollege Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rule 27 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal can be entertained without a formal application for condonation for late filing.
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit filed by the applicant's attorney constitutes a valid application for condonation under the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for condonation and proper procedure under Uniform Rule 27 were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to file a formal application for condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal. The affidavit submitted by the applicant's attorney was merely an explanation and did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Uniform Rules of Court, as it was not accompanied by a notice of motion indicating the relief sought. Without a valid condonation application, the court was precluded from entertaining the application for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application was removed from the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal removed from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is removed from the roll.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.