Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others v Greeff - Reasons for Rule 42(1) (A212/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 46 (19 February 2024)

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: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAWCHC 46 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others v Greeff - Reasons for Rule 42(1) (A212/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 46 (19 February 2024) Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others v Greeff - Reasons for Rule 42(1) (A212/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 46 (19 February 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAWCHC/Data/2024_46.html sino date 19 February 2024 THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN] REPORTABLE CASE NO : A212/2022 Before ALLIE, J  et  SALIE, J  et  MANGCU-LOCKWOOD, J Hearing: 17 July 2023; 1 February 2024 Reasons for Rule 42(1) Order: 19  February 2024 In the matter between: THE BODY CORPORATE OF MERRIMAN COURT 1 st Appellant CLAIRE ELIZABETH BLAHA 2 nd Appellant CHARLES ERIC LEONG SON 3 rd Appellant WENDY-LEE DE GOEDE 4 th Appellant ISTVAN GYONGY 5 th Appellant And JOHANNES WESSEL GREEFF Respondent REASONS FOR RULE 42(1) ORDER ELECTRONICALLY DELIVERED ON 19 FEBRUARY 2024 ALLIE, J: 1. In this Full Bench Appeal, counsel for the Appellants in the penultimate paragraph of his Heads of Argument sought the setting aside of the orders of the court a quo and the dismissal of the application before the court a quo with costs. 2. Clearly, no order concerning the costs of the appeal were made. 3. In light of the Appellants having been successful and it having been upheld, I am of the view that the costs of the appeal ought to follow the result. 4. Therefore, in terms of Rule 42(1) (b) of the Uniform Rules of this Court, I am of the view that the order in the judgment delivered on 13 February 2024, ought to be varied as follows in order to make clear our decision concerning the costs of the appeal. 5. By adding in paragraph 4 of the order which reads as follows: “ 4. The respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal.” IT IS ORDERED THAT: “ 4. The respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal.” Therefore the new order of the judgment that was given on 13 February 2024 reads as follows: 1. The appeal is upheld; 2. The orders of the court a quo dated 15 September 2021 and 16 March 2022 are set aside;  and 3. The respondent’s application is dismissed with costs. 4. The respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal.” JUDGE R. ALLIE SALIE, J: I agree. JUDGE G. SALIE MANGCU-LOCKWOOD, J: I agree. JUDGE N. MANGCU-LOCKWOOD CASE NO : A212/2022 Before ALLIE, J  et  SALIE, J  et  MANGCU-LOCKWOOD, J Hearing: 17 July 2023; 1 February 2024 Reasons for Rule 42(1) Judgment Delivered: 19 February 2024 In the matter between: THE BODY CORPORATE OF MERRIMAN COURT 1 st Appellant CLAIRE ELIZABETH BLAHA 2 nd Appellant CHARLES ERIC LEONG SON 3 rd Appellant WENDY-LEE DE GOEDE 4 th Appellant ISTVAN GYONGY 5 th Appellant And JOHANNES WESSEL GREEFF Respondent For the Appellant Adv PA Corbett SC Instructed by Van Rensburg & Co  (Ref: Leon van Rensburg) For Respondent Adv Adv RG Patrick Instructed by Maurice Phillips Wisenberg  (Ref: Hein Lombaard) Date(s) of Hearing: 17 July 2023;  1 February 2024 Judgment delivered on:19  February 2024 sino noindex make_database footer start