Selby Panel and Paint (Pty) Ltd v Santam Limited (005540/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1246 (31 October 2023)

Selby Panel and Paint (Pty) Ltd v Santam Limited (005540/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1246 (31 October 2023)

The court found that Selby failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing its application for leave to appeal, as the condonation affidavit lacked direct evidence from those with personal knowledge and did not adequately address the reasons for the delay. The merits of the grounds for appeal were also rejected: the main application did not require determination of the underlying money dispute, and the substituted security was sufficient for its purpose. The costs order was justified due to Selby's unreasonable refusal to accept Santam's tendered security and Santam's substantial success. The belated constitutional argument was not properly raised and did not warrant...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1246
Parties
Applicant: Selby Panel & Paint Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Santam Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2023
Case Number
005540/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the condonation application.
Judges
Pearse AJ
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Substituted Security, Costs Award, Superior Courts Act, Release of Property
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Condonation for Late Filing Substituted Security Costs Award Superior Courts Act Release of Property

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Selby Panel & Paint Proprietary Limited

Applicant

Santam Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated good cause for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds for leave to appeal against the main judgment and order are sufficient to warrant leave.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Selby failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing its application for leave to appeal, as the condonation affidavit lacked direct evidence from those with personal knowledge and did not adequately address the reasons for the delay. The merits of the grounds for appeal were also rejected: the main application did not require determination of the underlying money dispute, and the substituted security was sufficient for its purpose. The costs order was justified due to Selby's unreasonable refusal to accept Santam's tendered security and Santam's substantial success. The belated constitutional argument was not properly raised and did not warrant...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the condonation application.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the condonation application.