Bila Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Samancor Chrome Ltd (A295/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1051 (17 December 2019)

Bila Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Samancor Chrome Ltd (A295/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1051 (17 December 2019)

The Full Court held that the court a quo erred by failing to consider the prospects of success on appeal when granting an order under section 18 of the Superior Courts Act. The respondent, as the onus-bearing party, did not address this issue in its founding papers, and the judgment of Van der Westhuizen J did not deal with prospects of success. The court confirmed that, apart from the statutory requirements of section 18, the common law requirement to consider prospects of success on appeal remains. Absent a finding on this issue, the application for operational and enforceable execution of the judgment pending appeal could not be sustained. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the order...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1051
Parties
Appellant: Bila Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Samancor Chrome Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 December 2019
Case Number
A295/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Implementing Judgment Pending Petition for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of court a quo set aside and replaced with dismissal of application with costs.
Judges
Lukhaimane, Baqwa, Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Mining Rights, Prospects of Success on Appeal, Section 18 Superior Courts Act, Interdictory Relief
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mining Rights Prospects of Success on Appeal Section 18 Superior Courts Act Interdictory Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bila Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Samancor Chrome Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Implementing Judgment Pending Petition for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo erred by failing to consider the prospects of success on appeal when granting an order under section 18 of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the onus to show exceptional circumstances and absence of irreparable harm as required by section 18.
  3. 3 Whether the order implementing the judgment pending appeal should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court held that the court a quo erred by failing to consider the prospects of success on appeal when granting an order under section 18 of the Superior Courts Act. The respondent, as the onus-bearing party, did not address this issue in its founding papers, and the judgment of Van der Westhuizen J did not deal with prospects of success. The court confirmed that, apart from the statutory requirements of section 18, the common law requirement to consider prospects of success on appeal remains. Absent a finding on this issue, the application for operational and enforceable execution of the judgment pending appeal could not be sustained. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the order...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of court a quo set aside and replaced with dismissal of application with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.