130 Fox Street Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rio Ridge 1121 (Pty) Ltd (30135-2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1015 (8 October 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 1015 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## 130 Fox Street Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rio Ridge 1121 (Pty) Ltd (30135-2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1015 (8 October 2024) 130 Fox Street Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rio Ridge 1121 (Pty) Ltd (30135-2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1015 (8 October 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_1015.html sino date 8 October 2024 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: NO 8 October 2024 Case no. 30135/2019 In the matter between: 130 FOX STREET INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD FIRST APPLICANT FANUEL MOTSEPE SECOND APPLICANT And RIO RIDGE 1121 (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT In re the application between: RIO RIDGE 1121 (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And 130 FOX STREET INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD FIRST RESPONDENT FANUEL MOTSEPE SECOND RESPONDENT Coram:                   Dlamini J Date of hearing:      06 August 2024 Delivered:     08 October 2024 – This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives via email, by being uploaded to CaseLines and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on 08 October 2024. JUDGMENT DLAMINI J Introduction [1] This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment and order that I handed down on 26 March 2024. This application is also accompanied by an application for condonation for the late filling of the leave to appeal application. [2] It is trite that where an application for condonation is sought, the condonation application must be dealt with as it might have a bearing on the main application. Condonation [3] The established principle of our law is that the court has a discretion to grant condonation based on fairness to both sides and the following factors need to be taking into account; the decree of lateness, the explanation for the delay, the prospects of success, the importance of the case, the respondents interest in finality, convenience of the court and avoidance of unnecessary delay. Our courts have held that condonation is not merely for the asking and an applicant is expected to bring an application for condonation without delay and as soon as possible once they realise that there has been non - compliance with the Rules of Court. [4] The common cause facts are that the judgment was delivered on 26 March 2024 and the application for leave to appeal and the application requesting condonation for the late filling of the application for leave to appeal were served on 19 June 2024 some estimated 3 months after the due date for filling the application for leave to appeal. [5] Having regard to the testimony of the applicant and in the interest of justice I am satisfied that applicant has provided cogent reasons for the delay.  Therefore, condonation is granted. Grounds of appeal [6] The applicant’s grounds of appeal, the parties’ heads argument, this Court judgment including the entire record of appeal must be deemed to be incorporated in this judgment. [7] In my view the applicant has raised the same submission that were argued during the trial. I have dealt extensively with all the applicant’s submission in my judgment and these submissions were dismissed. [8] In light of the above, based on Section 17 of the Superior Court Act, and the factual matrix of this matter, I am not persuaded that there  are any reasons or extraordinary circumstances in this matter that warrants the grant of leave to appeal which would have reasonable prospects of success or that there are any other compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. [9] In my view, the applicant has not presented any facts that demonstrate that it has any prospects of success and therefore it would not be in the interest of justice to grant leave to appeal to the applicant. ORDER 1. The applicant’s application for condonation is granted. 2. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. J DLAMINI Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg For the Applicant: Adv. C VAN DER MERWE dominus.cvdm@gmail.com Instructed by: KAVEER GUINESS INC\ kaveer@kginc.co.za for the Respondent: Adv. JH JOOSTE joostejh@gmail.com instructed by: VAN DYK OOSTHUIZEN ATTORNEYS vincent@vdwinc.co.za/ leon@vdwinc.co.za sino noindex make_database footer start