Simelane v Roseveare and Others (27833/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 919 (15 November 2022)

Simelane v Roseveare and Others (27833/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 919 (15 November 2022)

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the only dispute was the share price, which was known to the applicant and referenced in the judgment. The alleged irregularity regarding the specification of share values did not constitute a competent ground for appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's conduct in filing extensive grounds of appeal without the court's reasons, and subsequently abandoning those grounds, justified a punitive costs order on an attorney-client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 919
Parties
Applicant: David Ndabenhle Simelane; Respondent: Shaun Roseveare; Respondent: Shaun Bradley Roseveare N.O.; Respondent: Ryan Edgar Dennis Roseveare N.O.; Respondent: Christine Mary Whittaker N.O.; Respondent: Craig Munro; Respondent: Steven Patrick Shaulis; Respondent: National Airways Corporation (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ultimate Heli (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Ultimate Airways (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Ultimate Heliport (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Case Number
27833/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Postponement Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. Punitive costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Mahomed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Postponement Application, Share Valuation, Breach of Contract, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Postponement Application Share Valuation Breach of Contract Punitive Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ndabenhle Simelane

Applicant

Shaun Roseveare

Respondent

Shaun Bradley Roseveare N.O.

Respondent

Ryan Edgar Dennis Roseveare N.O.

Respondent

Christine Mary Whittaker N.O.

Respondent

Craig Munro

Respondent

Steven Patrick Shaulis

Respondent

National Airways Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Ultimate Heli (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Ultimate Airways (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Ultimate Heliport (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Postponement Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order dismissing the postponement application was irregular for failing to specify share values.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has competent grounds for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether punitive costs should be awarded against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the only dispute was the share price, which was known to the applicant and referenced in the judgment. The alleged irregularity regarding the specification of share values did not constitute a competent ground for appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's conduct in filing extensive grounds of appeal without the court's reasons, and subsequently abandoning those grounds, justified a punitive costs order on an attorney-client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. Punitive costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for leave is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs on an attorney-client scale, including the costs of two counsel.