Tshabalala v Motloung (3118/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 228 (1 October 2020)

Tshabalala v Motloung (3118/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 228 (1 October 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any substantive explanation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal, nor did he demonstrate any prejudice to the respondent or sufficient cause for condonation. The applicant's grounds for appeal were unsubstantiated, as the refusal to refer the matter to oral evidence or lie detector tests was justified given the absence of disputed facts requiring such procedures. The applicant's withdrawal of the main application without a tender for costs rendered him liable for the respondent's costs, and no exceptional circumstances were present to depart from this general rule. The application for condonation and leave to...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 228
Parties
Applicant: ML Tshabalala; Respondent: M Motloung
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2020
Case Number
3118/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Costs Order
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
NS Daniso
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Application, Costs Award, Condonation for Late Filing, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Withdrawal of Application Costs Award Condonation for Late Filing Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ML Tshabalala

Applicant

M Motloung

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the referral to oral evidence or lie detector tests was warranted in the costs application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any substantive explanation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal, nor did he demonstrate any prejudice to the respondent or sufficient cause for condonation. The applicant's grounds for appeal were unsubstantiated, as the refusal to refer the matter to oral evidence or lie detector tests was justified given the absence of disputed facts requiring such procedures. The applicant's withdrawal of the main application without a tender for costs rendered him liable for the respondent's costs, and no exceptional circumstances were present to depart from this general rule. The application for condonation and leave to...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed.
  • The application for leave to appeal to the full court of this division against the judgment granted on 27 February 2020 is dismissed.