Strydom and Others v Coomans and Others (M533/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 211 (16 November 2023)

Strydom and Others v Coomans and Others (M533/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 211 (16 November 2023)

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were repetitive, vague, and lacked the required specificity and clarity. The applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success or to identify any error in law or fact in the original judgment. The test for leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, was not met. The court concluded that another court would not come to a different conclusion and that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. Costs were awarded to the respondents as the successful party.

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 211
Parties
Applicant: Stephanus Salamon Strydom; Applicant: The individuals mentioned in Annexure 'X' to the founding affidavit; Respondent: Solomon William Coomans; Respondent: Andries Coomans; Respondent: Solomon William Coomans N.O.; Respondent: Louisa Coomans N.O.; Respondent: Gawie du Plessis; Respondent: The Trustees of the Andries du Plessis Trust (IT 316/2001)
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2023
Case Number
M533/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Spoliation And/or Mandatory Interdict
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
FMM Snyman
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Test, Spoliation, Mandatory Interdict, Access to Private Road
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Test Spoliation Mandatory Interdict Access to Private Road

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanus Salamon Strydom

Applicant

The individuals mentioned in Annexure 'X' to the founding affidavit

Applicant

Solomon William Coomans

Respondent

Andries Coomans

Respondent

Solomon William Coomans N.O.

Respondent

Louisa Coomans N.O.

Respondent

Gawie du Plessis

Respondent

The Trustees of the Andries du Plessis Trust (IT 316/2001)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Spoliation And/or Mandatory Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the dismissal of their spoliation and/or mandatory interdict application.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds for leave to appeal are sufficiently clear, specific, and relevant to warrant consideration by another court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' right to protect their property constitutes a valid defence to spoliation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were repetitive, vague, and lacked the required specificity and clarity. The applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success or to identify any error in law or fact in the original judgment. The test for leave to appeal, as set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, was not met. The court concluded that another court would not come to a different conclusion and that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. Costs were awarded to the respondents as the successful party.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of the application.