Zwane NO and Another v Pretorius (399/2018) [2019] ZASCA 171 (29 November 2019)

Zwane NO and Another v Pretorius (399/2018) [2019] ZASCA 171 (29 November 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory and detailed explanation for the substantial delay in filing the appeal. The gaps in their account were significant and unexplained, and the conduct amounted to a flagrant breach of the rules. The court held that condonation is not granted merely for the asking and requires a full account of the causes of delay. Even if prospects of success were considered, the applicants failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the respondent’s counsel’s submissions, and the evidence established the respondent’s ownership of the bales through an oral agreement. Consequently, the application for condonation was...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 171
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Democracy Zwane N.O.; Applicant: Samuel Democracy Zwane; Respondent: Andre Pretorius
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Case Number
399/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed; appeal struck from the roll.
Judges
Cachalia, Swain, Mokgohloa
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Appeal, Oral Agreement, Ownership of Property, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Appeal Oral Agreement Ownership of Property Prospects of Success

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Democracy Zwane N.O.

Applicant

Samuel Democracy Zwane

Applicant

Andre Pretorius

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the appeal should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have prospects of success in the appeal regarding ownership of the bales.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory and detailed explanation for the substantial delay in filing the appeal. The gaps in their account were significant and unexplained, and the conduct amounted to a flagrant breach of the rules. The court held that condonation is not granted merely for the asking and requires a full account of the causes of delay. Even if prospects of success were considered, the applicants failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the respondent’s counsel’s submissions, and the evidence established the respondent’s ownership of the bales through an oral agreement. Consequently, the application for condonation was...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed; appeal struck from the roll.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal is struck from the roll.