Satara Ontwikkelaars (Edms) Bpk v Krynauw (18545/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 6 (16 January 2017)

Satara Ontwikkelaars (Edms) Bpk v Krynauw (18545/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 6 (16 January 2017)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the late filing was bona fide and condonation was granted, as the respondent did not strongly oppose it. However, on the merits, the court was not convinced that any of the grounds for leave to appeal had reasonable prospects of success. The evidence presented by the applicant regarding damages was found to be hearsay and insufficient, and there was no proof of a valid written cession or waiver of the addendum claim. The court held that none of the grounds raised would likely result in a different outcome before another court. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 6
Parties
Applicant: Satara Ontwikkelaars (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Pierre Krynauw
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 2017
Case Number
18545/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Handed Down on 29 June 2016.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Canca
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation for Late Filing, Damages, Cession and Waiver, Non Variation Clause
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Condonation for Late Filing Damages Cession and Waiver Non Variation Clause

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satara Ontwikkelaars (Edms) Bpk

Applicant

Pierre Krynauw

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Handed Down on 29 June 2016.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the dismissed claim and damages.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged cession or waiver of the addendum claim to Excalibur was valid and in writing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the late filing was bona fide and condonation was granted, as the respondent did not strongly oppose it. However, on the merits, the court was not convinced that any of the grounds for leave to appeal had reasonable prospects of success. The evidence presented by the applicant regarding damages was found to be hearsay and insufficient, and there was no proof of a valid written cession or waiver of the addendum claim. The court held that none of the grounds raised would likely result in a different outcome before another court. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.