Samuel Democracy Zwane N.O. v Andre Pretorius

The first applicant, cited in his capacity as trustee of the Democracy Zwane Family Trust, purchased a farm from the estate of the late Ms Lesley Megan Pretorius. Prior to the successful transfer of the farm in May 2015, the respondent had entered into an oral agreement with the executor of the estate, Mr Pretorius, allowing him to maintain the farm, fertilise and cut the grass, and keep the resulting grass bales as his own in return for maintaining the land. After transfer, the applicants allowed the respondent to remove his cattle but refused to allow him to remove 692 grass bales. The respondent instituted action in the High Court claiming ownership of the bales. The High Court found in his favour and ordered delivery of the bales. The applicants’ application for leave to appeal was refused, and they subsequently sought condonation in the Supreme Court of Appeal for the late filing of the appeal record.

The application for condonation was dismissed with costs, and the appeal was struck from the roll.

The case reaffirms strict principles governing condonation applications in the Supreme Court of Appeal, emphasizing that litigants bear responsibility for their attorneys’ conduct and must provide a full and detailed explanation for delays. It also clarifies that concessions made in opening addresses do not necessarily amount to binding admissions and do not override pleadings and evidence.