Schorr and Others v Reckmann and Others (22734/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1203 (26 November 2024)

Schorr and Others v Reckmann and Others (22734/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1203 (26 November 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of their application for leave to appeal. They did not oppose the original review and counterapplication, and their current application appears to be an afterthought. The grounds for leave to appeal raised nothing new and mirrored those previously dismissed in the first respondent's application. The applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success or compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Consequently, both the application for condonation and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1203
Parties
Applicant: Rainer Schorr; Applicant: Laurinee Castle; Applicant: Walter Fischer; Respondent: Gunther Franz Reckmann; Respondent: Busani Mabundla N.O.; Respondent: Empowa Investments (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Andrew Adam Lipshitz; Respondent: Rockfire SA (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2024
Case Number
22734/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review and Counterapplication
Outcome
Both the application for condonation and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs Order

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rainer Schorr

Applicant

Laurinee Castle

Applicant

Walter Fischer

Applicant

Gunther Franz Reckmann

Respondent

Busani Mabundla N.O.

Respondent

Empowa Investments (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Andrew Adam Lipshitz

Respondent

Rockfire SA (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review and Counterapplication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment handed down on 12 April 2024.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of their application for leave to appeal. They did not oppose the original review and counterapplication, and their current application appears to be an afterthought. The grounds for leave to appeal raised nothing new and mirrored those previously dismissed in the first respondent's application. The applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success or compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Consequently, both the application for condonation and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Both the application for condonation and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.