Steenkamp and Another v Knysna Local Minicipality and Another (24824/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 429 (13 July 2010)

Steenkamp and Another v Knysna Local Minicipality and Another (24824/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 429 (13 July 2010)

The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal as set out by the applicants and the opposition by the respondents. After reviewing the record and the previous judgment, the court found no basis to depart from its earlier findings. The actions of the respondents, particularly the second respondent, were not found to be unreasonable in the use of the property. The application for leave to appeal did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Full Bench was refused with costs.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 429
Parties
Applicant: Diane Louise Steenkamp; Applicant: Neil Desmond Steenkamp; Respondent: Knysna Local Municipality; Respondent: Millwood Gardens t/a Leisure Gardens
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 July 2010
Case Number
24824/2009
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
N C Erasmus
Legal Topics
Use of Property, Reasonableness of Land Use, Leave to Appeal, Costs Award
Land and Property Use of Property Reasonableness of Land Use Leave to Appeal Costs Award

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

Diane Louise Steenkamp

Applicant

Neil Desmond Steenkamp

Applicant

Knysna Local Municipality

Respondent

Millwood Gardens t/a Leisure Gardens

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the actions of the respondents, particularly the second respondent, were unreasonable in the use of the property.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the previous judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal as set out by the applicants and the opposition by the respondents. After reviewing the record and the previous judgment, the court found no basis to depart from its earlier findings. The actions of the respondents, particularly the second respondent, were not found to be unreasonable in the use of the property. The application for leave to appeal did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Full Bench was refused with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to the Full Bench is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.