All Hearts Foundation NPO and Others v Roon (Leave to Appeal) (23481/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 373 (27 May 2022)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPPHC 373 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## All Hearts Foundation NPO and Others v Roon (Leave to Appeal) (23481/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 373 (27 May 2022) All Hearts Foundation NPO and Others v Roon (Leave to Appeal) (23481/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 373 (27 May 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_373.html sino date 27 May 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case number: 23481/2020 REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO REVISED 27 May 2022 In the matter between: ALL HEARTS FOUNDATION NPO First Applicant ALEXANDRA CHRISTINE LENNON Second Applicant RONNIE KIM AUSTEN Third Applicant And GRETA ALGONDA BETSY CARLA ROON Respondent In re: GRETA ALGONDA BETSY CARLA ROON                                      Applicant And ALL HEARTS FOUNDATION NPO                                                   First Respondent ALEXANDRA CHRISTINE LENNON                                                Second Respondent RONNIE KIM AUSTEN                                                                     Third Respondent UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS                                                               Fourth Respondent MADIBENG LOCAL MUNICPALITY                                                Fifth Respondent JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL 1.                  The applicants in this matter have brought an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court, handed down on 27 October 2021. The order of the judgment reads as follows. “ 1. The lease agreement between the applicant and first respondent was lawfully cancelled by the applicant. 2.             The first respondent is ordered to vacate the property, Plot 97, De Rust, Hartbeespoortdam, North-West on or before 30 April 2022. 3.             The second and third respondents are herewith ordered to vacate the property, Plot 97, De Rust, Hartbeespoortdam, North-West on or before 30 April 2022. 4.             It is further ordered that in the event that the first and/or the second and third respondents do not vacate the property on or before 30 April 2022, the sheriff alternatively his duly appointed deputy together with such assistance as he deems appropriate is authorised and directed to evict the first, second and fourth respondents from the property. 5.             The first, second and third respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application including the costs of the application in terms of s 4(2) of the PIE Act. 2.            The application for leave to appeal was only filed on 22 March 2022 and the applicants also served a condonation application for their late filing of the application for leave to appeal. The condonation application was filed on 4 April 2022. 3.            The respondent opposed the application for leave to appeal and filed a notice in terms of Uniform Rule of Court 6(5)(d)(iii) in respect of the applicants’ condonation application. 4.            The parties argued the condonation application and leave to appeal simultaneously, since prospects of success of the appeal plays a cardinal role in the granting of condonation. 5.            Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, Act 10 of 2013, imposes substantive law provisions applicable to applications for leave to appeal. The most important principles are as follows. It is stipulated that leave to appeal “may only be given” if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, exists. 6.            I considered all arguments raised by the applicants and on due consideration of the circumstances of this matter, and despite any sympathy I may have for the animals in the care of the first applicant, I am not of opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success and in my view, no other compelling reasons exists why the appeal should be heard. 7.            I dealt with all aspects of the matter in my judgment a quo and regard my reasoning as sufficient. 8.            In view of the above, both the applicants’ application for condonation for the late filing of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal are refused with costs. ACTING JUDGE JF BARNARDT JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 27May 2022. APPEARANCES For the applicants:       Adv. McTurk Instructed by:              Schindlers Inc Tel: 011 448-6000 For the respondent:     Adv. Labuschagne Instructed by:              EW Serfonteing & Associates Inc. Tel: 012 344-6535 Date heard: 25 May 2021 Date of judgment: 27 May 2021 sino noindex make_database footer start