Von Landsberg and Another v De Beer (36842/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 810 (23 February 2017)

Von Landsberg and Another v De Beer (36842/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 810 (23 February 2017)

The court found that the applicants' explanations for procedural delays were insufficient but, in the interests of justice, condonation was granted with costs against the applicants. On the merits, the court held that the respondent's particulars of claim established a joint venture and joint and several liability with sufficient particularity. The applicants had themselves amended and acknowledged the schedule (Annexure E) reflecting liability, and could not now distance themselves from it. The other grounds raised by the applicants were either not canvassed in their opposing affidavit or were comprehensively dealt with in the original judgment. The court concluded that there were no...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 810
Parties
Applicant: Heinrich Von Landsberg; Applicant: Universal Pulse Trading 367 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hendrik Christoffel De Beer
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2017
Case Number
36842/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for condonation granted with costs against the applicants; application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Kollapen
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Joint and Several Liability, Condonation, Practice Directive, Joint Venture
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Joint and Several Liability Condonation Practice Directive Joint Venture

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heinrich Von Landsberg

Applicant

Universal Pulse Trading 367 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hendrik Christoffel De Beer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal and the late request for transcription of the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the summary judgment granted.
  3. 3 Whether joint and several liability was properly established in the respondent's claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' explanations for procedural delays were insufficient but, in the interests of justice, condonation was granted with costs against the applicants. On the merits, the court held that the respondent's particulars of claim established a joint venture and joint and several liability with sufficient particularity. The applicants had themselves amended and acknowledged the schedule (Annexure E) reflecting liability, and could not now distance themselves from it. The other grounds raised by the applicants were either not canvassed in their opposing affidavit or were comprehensively dealt with in the original judgment. The court concluded that there were no...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted with costs against the applicants; application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal and the ordering of the transcription of the judgment is granted.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application for condonation, including the costs of two counsel.