Saila v Thulo and Others (1535/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 41 (7 February 2008)

Saila v Thulo and Others (1535/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 41 (7 February 2008)

The application is dismissed on two main grounds. First, the applicant failed to file a substantive application for condonation for the late filing, and no reasonable explanation was provided for the seven-year delay. The Rules require both filing and service of such an application, which was not done. Second, the application does not comply with Rule 53 or the requirements of PAJA for judicial review, and was not brought within a reasonable time. The applicant's claim is further prescribed under section 11 of the Prescription Act, as her right to challenge the transfer arose when she became aware of the relevant facts in 2000. The administrative decisions granting ownership to the first...

Citation
[2008] ZAFSHC 41
Parties
Applicant: Keitumetse Melody Saila; Respondent: Tshediso Kenneth Thulo; Respondent: Mathapelo Patience Thulo; Respondent: Ponane Esau Mahlaba; Respondent: Molehi Walter Kgaile; Respondent: Kelebogile Theodoria Kgaile; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: The Mangaung Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2008
Case Number
1535/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
B C Mocumie
Legal Topics
Conversion of Occupational Rights, Prescription Act Claims, Judicial Review Delay, Audi Alteram Partem, Residential Permit Disputes, Condonation Application
Land and Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Conversion of Occupational Rights Prescription Act Claims Judicial Review Delay Audi Alteram Partem Residential Permit Disputes +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keitumetse Melody Saila

Applicant

Tshediso Kenneth Thulo

Respondent

Mathapelo Patience Thulo

Respondent

Ponane Esau Mahlaba

Respondent

Molehi Walter Kgaile

Respondent

Kelebogile Theodoria Kgaile

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

The Mangaung Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the registration of the property set aside and registered in her name.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the application should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application constitutes a valid review under Rule 53 and PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed on two main grounds. First, the applicant failed to file a substantive application for condonation for the late filing, and no reasonable explanation was provided for the seven-year delay. The Rules require both filing and service of such an application, which was not done. Second, the application does not comply with Rule 53 or the requirements of PAJA for judicial review, and was not brought within a reasonable time. The applicant's claim is further prescribed under section 11 of the Prescription Act, as her right to challenge the transfer arose when she became aware of the relevant facts in 2000. The administrative decisions granting ownership to the first...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application as per notice of motion is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.