Sunset Game Lodge CC v Da Costa and Another (9452/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 152 (8 August 2025)

Sunset Game Lodge CC v Da Costa and Another (9452/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 152 (8 August 2025)

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant established reasonable prospects of success on appeal. There was no material factual dispute requiring referral to trial, and the matter was capable of determination on affidavit. The lease agreement was validly cancelled, and the applicant failed to show entitlement to transfer of ownership. The issue regarding the Kruger-permit was rendered moot by the cancellation. The cost order was properly granted to the successful party, and no irregularity or misdirection was shown. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 152
Parties
Applicant: Sunset Game Lodge CC; Respondent: Arthur John Da Costa; Respondent: Simcha Da Costa
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2025
Case Number
9452/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 7 November 2024.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including costs to counsel on Scale B.
Judges
Bresler
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Contractual Possession, Valid Cancellation, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Contractual Possession Valid Cancellation 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunset Game Lodge CC

Applicant

Arthur John Da Costa

Respondent

Simcha Da Costa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 7 November 2024.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment and order delivered on 7 November 2024.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in not referring the matter to trial or oral evidence due to alleged disputes of fact.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant retained a contractual right of possession and whether the respondent validly cancelled the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant established reasonable prospects of success on appeal. There was no material factual dispute requiring referral to trial, and the matter was capable of determination on affidavit. The lease agreement was validly cancelled, and the applicant failed to show entitlement to transfer of ownership. The issue regarding the Kruger-permit was rendered moot by the cancellation. The cost order was properly granted to the successful party, and no irregularity or misdirection was shown. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including costs to counsel on Scale B.

Orders

  • Leave to Appeal is refused.
  • Applicant is ordered to pay costs, including costs to counsel on Scale B.