About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 537
|
|
Grobler v Vermaak (40234/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 537 (24 June 2016)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
24/6/2016
CASE
NO: 40234/2015
Reportable:
no
Of
interest to other judges: no
Revised
In
the matter between:
IJ
GROBLER
Applicant
(In
the application for leave to appeal)
and
C
VERMAAK
Respondent
(In
the application for leave to appeal)
JUDGMENT
(Application
for leave to appeal)
AC
BASSON. J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgement and
order refusing recission of a judgment granted against the
applicant
(the defendant in the main application) on 16 August 2012.
[2]
I do not intend repeating the reasons for my judgment as they are
fully recorded in the judgment handed down on 18 May 2016.
Suffice to
point out that this court concluded that the applicant had failed to
advance a reasonable explanation for the default
and secondly that
she did not advance a
bona fide
defence which
prima facie
has prospects of success.
[3]
The court also held that the applicant did not diligently pursue the
recission application to finality and that almost three
years had
lapsed before the recission application finally served before this
court. Two recission applications were filed. The
first recission
application was withdrawn two years after the recission application
was filed. After the withdrawal of the first
recission application
the applicant waited for more than a year to file the second
recession application. The applicant simply
refuses to accept any
responsibility for these delays and continues to place the blame on
her attorneys. Although it is accepted
that the common law does not
prescribe timeframes within which a rescission should be brought, it
is accepted that such an application
should be brought within a
reasonable time after judgement. In the present matter more than
three years have lapsed since the judgement
was granted before the
(second) recission application was finally heard. This time period is
marred by numerous unacceptable and
largely unexplained delays. The
court consequently concluded on the facts that the applicant is the
author of her own misfortune.
[4]
I have considered whether an appeal would have reasonable prospects
of success. I am not persuaded that there exist reasonable
prospects
of success on appeal.
[5]
In the event the following order is made:
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed with costs.
_______________________
AC
BASSON
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For
the applicant :
Adv. J F Winnerts
Instructed
by
:
Bornman
Snyman & Barnard Attorneys
For
the Respondent :
Adv. A Greylin
Instructed
by
:
Spies
Bester Potgieter Attorneys