Blumenthal and Another v Thomson NO and Another (462/92) [1993] ZASCA 190; 1994 (2) SA 118 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 138 (A) (30 November 1993)

Blumenthal and Another v Thomson NO and Another (462/92) [1993] ZASCA 190; 1994 (2) SA 118 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 138 (A) (30 November 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' application for condonation due to flagrant and gross breaches of the Rules of Court regarding the prosecution of the appeal. The attorneys for the appellants failed to file the notice of appeal, power of attorney, record, and security for costs within the prescribed periods, and provided no satisfactory explanation for these failures. The Court held that, in cases of such flagrant non-compliance, condonation may be refused regardless of the merits of the appeal or whether the blame lies solely with the attorneys. The cumulative effect of the breaches, the lack of acceptable explanation, and the respondent's interest in the finality of...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 190
Parties
Appellant: Julius Blumenthal; Appellant: Hymie Medalie; Respondent: Miriam Thomson N O; Respondent: Master of the Supreme Court
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 1993
Case Number
462/92
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing and Procedural Non Compliance Before the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Joubert, Nestadt, Eksteen, Howie, Kriegler
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Appeal, Security for Costs, Power of Attorney, Record Lodgement
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Appeal Security for Costs Power of Attorney Record Lodgement

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Blumenthal

Appellant

Hymie Medalie

Appellant

Miriam Thomson N O

Respondent

Master of the Supreme Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing and Procedural Non Compliance Before the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' application for condonation of late filing of the notice of appeal, power of attorney, record, and security for costs should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the breaches of the Rules of Court by the appellants and their attorneys are excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success on appeal are relevant given the flagrant non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' application for condonation due to flagrant and gross breaches of the Rules of Court regarding the prosecution of the appeal. The attorneys for the appellants failed to file the notice of appeal, power of attorney, record, and security for costs within the prescribed periods, and provided no satisfactory explanation for these failures. The Court held that, in cases of such flagrant non-compliance, condonation may be refused regardless of the merits of the appeal or whether the blame lies solely with the attorneys. The cumulative effect of the breaches, the lack of acceptable explanation, and the respondent's interest in the finality of...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of late filing of the notice of appeal, power of attorney, record, and security for costs is dismissed with costs.
  • The first respondent's costs of appeal are to be paid by the first and second appellants, including the costs of two counsel.