Sono and Another v Sheriff of the High Court Tshwane North and Another (B1781/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1194 (22 November 2024)

Sono and Another v Sheriff of the High Court Tshwane North and Another (B1781/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1194 (22 November 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The grounds advanced were either unfounded or did not raise any compelling reason or important question of law. The applicants' procedural failures, including not prosecuting the application for leave to appeal diligently and failing to file heads of argument or properly brief counsel, further undermined their case. The interests of justice were not implicated, and no valid reason was presented for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and a punitive costs order was warranted due to the applicants' conduct.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1194
Parties
Applicant: Pastor Raymond Sono; Applicant: Fountain of Life Worship Centre; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court, Tshwane North; Respondent: Savdev Land 1 (Pty) Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Case Number
B1781/2024
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Minnaar AJ
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interim Interdict, Costs Order, Urgency, Recusal, Settlement Agreement
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interim Interdict Costs Order Urgency Recusal Settlement Agreement

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pastor Raymond Sono

Applicant

Fountain of Life Worship Centre

Applicant

Sheriff of the High Court, Tshwane North

Respondent

Savdev Land 1 (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' procedural conduct warrants a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The grounds advanced were either unfounded or did not raise any compelling reason or important question of law. The applicants' procedural failures, including not prosecuting the application for leave to appeal diligently and failing to file heads of argument or properly brief counsel, further undermined their case. The interests of justice were not implicated, and no valid reason was presented for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and a punitive costs order was warranted due to the applicants' conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.