Gauteng High Court dismisses Dzimba's bid to appeal instalment sale judgment

JOHANNESBURG - The Gauteng High Court has dismissed an application by Mona Solomon Dzimba for leave to appeal against a 2024 judgment involving an instalment sale agreement, ruling that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Acting Judge J.C. Uys delivered the ruling on 17 August 2026, following a hearing held on 5 June. Dzimba had sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, or alternatively to a Full Bench of the Gauteng High Court, against Uys's judgment handed down on 12 November 2024.

The original matter involved Dzimba, Jane Dzimba, Company Unique Finance (Pty) Ltd, CUF Property Management Services (Pty) Ltd and other respondents.

The application for leave to appeal was filed well outside the prescribed deadline. The final day for filing was 3 December 2024, but the notice was only submitted electronically on or about 12 March 2025. Dzimba therefore sought condonation for the late filing.

Uys found that the explanation for the delay failed to meet minimum requirements, noting contradictions in the applicant's account. Dzimba argued that the period between 15 December 2024 and 13 January 2025 should be treated as dies non and excluded from the calculation of the delay. The court rejected the argument, stating that no dies non applies to notices of application for leave to appeal.

Despite the shortcomings, Uys granted condonation in the interests of justice, noting Dzimba's circumstances, including the fact that he had previously been represented on a pro bono basis by the Legal Advisory and Information Centre law clinic, which later ceased representation due to funding constraints.

However, condonation did not translate into permission to pursue the appeal.

Dzimba relied on four remaining grounds of appeal after abandoning a challenge relating to the refusal of a postponement. He alleged that Uys had erred in finding that the cancellation of a 2004 instalment sale agreement was not void or unlawful, that certain charges under the agreement were lawful, and that the cancellation and inclusion of disputed costs did not indirectly violate sections 9, 10 and 26 of the Constitution.

Uys found that none of the alleged findings forming the basis of the appeal had actually been made in his 2024 judgment. "None of those findings relied upon as grounds of appeal and having been stated to have erroneously been made by me, were in fact so made," he said. Dzimba's counsel, Mr S.B. Nkosi, was unable to identify where such findings appeared in the earlier judgment.

The judge clarified that the actual findings concerned the applicants' constitutional challenge to provisions of the Prescription Act and whether their claims had prescribed. The court held that the main application, launched on 29 October 2019, came more than three years after the applicants had sufficient knowledge of their alleged right of action. As a result, the claims forming the basis of the relief sought had prescribed.

Uys also rejected an argument that the alleged constitutional implications justified overlooking the extensive delay, noting that counsel failed to provide supporting authorities.

In determining whether leave to appeal should be granted, the court applied the requirement that an applicant must demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Citing the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha, Uys said a mere possibility of success or an arguable case was insufficient. "There must be a sound, rational basis to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal," he said.

Uys concluded that no such basis had been established.

The court also expressed concern that after the notice of application for leave to appeal was filed in March 2025, the matter remained dormant for more than a year, with no apparent follow‑up by Dzimba's attorneys.

The court ultimately granted condonation but dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs, including the costs of counsel on Scale B.

This ruling adds to ongoing legal discussions around prescription law and appeal thresholds in South African