---

                                                                                                             NOT REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH

Case no:  676/2013

Date heard:  14.8.2013

Reasons made available: 14.10.2014

In the matter between:

ROYDEN EDWARD MINTO THOMPSON                                                         First Applicant

JEANETTE THOMPSON                                                                              Second Applicant

PAMBILI PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CC

(REGISTRATION NUMBER 2005/144906/23)                                                 Third Applicant

PAMBILI SESCTIONAL TITLE MANAGEMENT CC

(REGISTRATION NUMBER 2007/199052/23)                                               Fourth Applicant

PAMBILI DEVELOPMENTS CC

(REGISTRATION NUMBER 2003/025045/07)                                                   Fifth Applicant

PAMBILI ESTATES CC        

(REGISTRATION NUMBER 2001/038778/23)                                                  Sixth Applicant

vs

LEYLA LIMBADA                                                                                                   Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TSHIKI  J:

[1] This matter is no different from the other two in respect of which the applicants in case no 2122/2013 and case no 1230/2013 seek an indulgence from this Court to be granted a postponement of their eviction applications from the premises.

[2] It seems to me that although the applicants herein became aware of the facts which gave rise to the need to apply for,  not only the postponement but to file the application for rescission of judgment on the 25^th September 2013, yet the affidavit for rescission of judgment was only commissioned on the 13^th August 2014.  In my view, it is not surprising that this application for postponement was in my view, conveniently filed on the 14^th August 2014 the day of the set down of the eviction proceedings.  There is no valid explanation why it was not filed earlier than the 14^th August 2014.  This to me shows the laxity displayed by the applicant in conducting their case and to the prejudice of the respondent herein.  This Court only became aware of these papers in Court when the application for leave to postpone the matter was moved.  The laxity displayed by the applicant in conducting its own affairs especially this application for postponement does not show seriousness and cannot be condoned by this Court.

[3] In any event, these proceedings including those that pertain to the application for the rescission of judgment as well as the postponement sought herein have been the subject of the application for leave to appeal which was dismissed by this Court but not prosecuted in the Supreme Court of Appeal in terms of section 17 (2)(b) of the Rules of that Court.   What that means is that case proceedings which have travelled that long cannot be reversed for the purposes of an application for rescission of judgment especially in this case wheret there are no prospects of success in taking that route.

[4] The matter has come to a final stage which is the final judgment on the merits and cannot now be brought by the back door for a rescission of judgment.  I mention this with a view to illustrate not that I am now dealing with the merits of the application for rescission but with a view to deal with the merits of the application for postponement.  In other words, if the applicant has a good case in his application for rescission of judgment it may as well be granted leave to have the matter postponed.  Should its case lack good cause in the application for rescission of judgment there would not be a need for this Court to grant it a postponement.  As I have mentioned above, a postponement is an indulgence which can only be granted on good cause shown especially in a case where the applicant has been involved in the matter throughout and from the beginning of the proceedings.

[5] In my view, there are no prospects of success on the merits of the rescission of judgment and for that reason I have no grounds for granting the postponement of this matter.

[6] There has been no challenge on the merits of the eviction by the respondents.  I agree with Mr Scott’s contentions on the merits of the eviction.

[7] It is for the above reasons that the application for the postponement was dismissed with costs.

_________________________

P.W. TSHIKI

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

 

For the applicants                 :                  Ms Carruthers

Instructors by                        :                  Carruthers Attorneys

                                                                        PORT ELIZABETH

                                                                        Ref:  Ms Carruthers

                                                                        Tel: 041 373 3812

 

For the respondent               :                  ADV PWA Scott SC

Instructed by                         :                  BLC Attorneys

                                                                        PORT ELIZABETH

                                                                        Ref:  Mr Schoeman

                                                                        Tel:  041 506 3700

 

---