Adams & Adams Attorneys and Another v Pointer Fashion International CC and Others (324/2013) [2014] ZASCA 11; 2014 BIP 176 (SCA) (19 March 2014)

Adams & Adams Attorneys and Another v Pointer Fashion International CC and Others (324/2013) [2014] ZASCA 11; 2014 BIP 176 (SCA) (19 March 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order granting leave to deliver a further affidavit was interlocutory and purely procedural, disposing of no substantive issue between the parties. Such orders are not appealable under well-established authority. The court further found that Deluxe Holdings AG had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court for the purposes of the interlocutory application by participating in the proceedings and opposing the application. The jurisdictional point raised by the appellants was irrelevant to the interlocutory matter and would be determined when the merits of the main application are adjudicated. The appeal was therefore struck off the roll with costs.

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 11
Parties
Appellant: Adams & Adams Attorneys; Appellant: Deluxe Holdings AG; Respondent: Pointer Fashion International CC; Respondent: Commissioner of Companies and Intellectual Property; Respondent: Sheriff of the Magistrates’ Court, Pretoria South East
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Case Number
324/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order Permitting Delivery of Further Affidavit
Outcome
Appeal struck off the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mthiyane DP, Mhlantla JA, Wallis JA, Van Zyl AJA, Mocumie AJA
Legal Topics
Appealability of Interlocutory Orders, Trade Mark Registration, Sale in Execution, Jurisdiction Over Peregrinus, Attachment Ad Confirmandam Jurisdictionem
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Appealability of Interlocutory Orders Trade Mark Registration Sale in Execution Jurisdiction Over Peregrinus Attachment Ad Confirmandam Jurisdictionem

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adams & Adams Attorneys

Appellant

Deluxe Holdings AG

Appellant

Pointer Fashion International CC

Respondent

Commissioner of Companies and Intellectual Property

Respondent

Sheriff of the Magistrates’ Court, Pretoria South East

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order Permitting Delivery of Further Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order granting leave to deliver a further affidavit in interlocutory proceedings is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction over the second appellant, a peregrinus, for the purposes of the interlocutory application.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural order disposed of any substantive issue between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order granting leave to deliver a further affidavit was interlocutory and purely procedural, disposing of no substantive issue between the parties. Such orders are not appealable under well-established authority. The court further found that Deluxe Holdings AG had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court for the purposes of the interlocutory application by participating in the proceedings and opposing the application. The jurisdictional point raised by the appellants was irrelevant to the interlocutory matter and would be determined when the merits of the main application are adjudicated. The appeal was therefore struck off the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck off the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck off the roll with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.