court’s judgment, appeal to the Supreme Court. In this event, they would still have recourse to the processes of the Supreme Court regarding this judgment of this court, together with the attendant processes of stay and related procedures. [26] Second, and as mentioned above, the applicants’ case is against Standard Bank. In this regard, if the Supreme Court finds that the default judgment was not properly granted, the applicants would still have a claim for damages or other relief, as they may be advised against the Bank and not the respondent. The Bank is still in existence and would most probably be in a solvent position to meet any claim that the courts may award in the applicants’ favour. [27] The applicants depose as follows at paras [43] and [44] of their affidavit in support of the relief sought in this court: We do appreciate that the Respondent in this matter before the High Court ‘[43] will be prejudiced by the stay of the ejectment action, pending the finalization of our condonation and reinstatement application and ultimately our appeal in the Supreme Court. [44] We however, respectfully summit (sic) that such prejudice can be remedied by an appropriate costs order, in the event of our aforesaid application and appeal being successful.’ [28 Nothing can be further from the truth in my view. The respondent has been suffering prejudice from the day he bought the property and had it registered into his name. His ownership is one in name only as he can exercise not one right that other owners do. He is instead meeting his obligations to the seller but not deriving any benefit therefrom regard had to present indications, and this issue Ms. Campbell understandably stressed. [29] On the other hand, the applicants are staying in the property which was sold and enjoying all the privileges without paying any rent or other means to the registered owner. Payment of costs, it stands to reason, cannot eradicate or even ameliorate the
court’s judgment, appeal to the Supreme Court. In this event, they would still have recourse to the processes of the Supreme Court regarding this judgment of this court, together with the attendant processes of stay and related procedures. [26] Second, and as mentioned above, the applicants’ case is against Standard Bank. In this regard, if the Supreme Court finds that the default judgment was not properly granted, the applicants would still have a claim for damages or other relief, as they may be advised against the Bank and not the respondent. The Bank is still in existence and would most probably be in a solvent position to meet any claim that the courts may award in the applicants’ favour. [27] The applicants depose as follows at paras [43] and [44] of their affidavit in support of the relief sought in this court: ‘[43] We do appreciate that the Respondent in this matter before the High Court will be prejudiced by the stay of the ejectment action, pending the finalization of our condonation and reinstatement application and ultimately our appeal in the Supreme Court. [44] We however, respectfully summit (sic) that such prejudice can be remedied by an appropriate costs order, in the event of our aforesaid application and appeal being successful.’ [28 Nothing can be further from the truth in my view. The respondent has been suffering prejudice from the day he bought the property and had it registered into his name. His ownership is one in name only as he can exercise not one right that other owners do. He is instead meeting his obligations to the seller but not deriving any benefit therefrom regard had to present indications, and this issue Ms. Campbell understandably stressed. [29] On the other hand, the applicants are staying in the property which was sold and enjoying all the privileges without paying any rent or other means to the registered owner. Payment of costs, it stands to reason, cannot eradicate or even ameliorate the