South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAWCHC 46

| Noteup | LawCite

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


 

THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

[WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN]

 

REPORTABLE

CASE NOA212/2022

 

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

1st Appellant

CLAIRE ELIZABETH BLAHA

2nd Appellant

CHARLES ERIC LEONG SON

3rd Appellant

WENDY-LEE DE GOEDE

4th Appellant

ISTVAN GYONGY

5th 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 NOA212/2022

 

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

1st Appellant

CLAIRE ELIZABETH BLAHA

2nd Appellant

CHARLES ERIC LEONG SON

3rd Appellant

WENDY-LEE DE GOEDE

4th Appellant

ISTVAN GYONGY

5th 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