Champagne Falls (Pty) Limited v Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (WT28/08/2006) [2009] ZAWT 4 (8 April 2009)

Champagne Falls (Pty) Limited v Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (WT28/08/2006) [2009] ZAWT 4 (8 April 2009)

The Tribunal found that the letter from the Water Tribunal Officer dated 25 August 2006, which communicated the chairperson's approval of condonation, constituted a valid decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was functus officio and could not review its own decision. The issue of condonation was therefore res judicata, having already been adjudicated. Even if this finding was incorrect, the Tribunal was satisfied that good reason existed for condonation, as the appellant's submissions were not effectively disputed by the respondent, who failed to reply. The Tribunal concluded that there was no undetermined application for condonation before it and the appeal should proceed.

Citation
[2009] ZAWT 4
Parties
Appellant: Champagne Falls (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
Court
Water Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2009
Case Number
WT28/08/2006
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Preliminary Ruling on Condonation
Outcome
Condonation was found to have already been granted and the Tribunal was functus officio. The appeal will be rescheduled for hearing.
Judges
L.J Lekale, W Singo, Hubert Thompson, A.S Makhanya
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Appeal, Functus Officio, Res Judicata, Water Tribunal Procedure
Administrative Law Condonation Late Filing of Appeal Functus Officio Res Judicata Water Tribunal Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Champagne Falls (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Preliminary Ruling on Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an undetermined application for condonation before the Tribunal.
  2. 2 Whether good reason existed for condonation of the late lodging of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the letter from the Water Tribunal Officer dated 25 August 2006, which communicated the chairperson's approval of condonation, constituted a valid decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was functus officio and could not review its own decision. The issue of condonation was therefore res judicata, having already been adjudicated. Even if this finding was incorrect, the Tribunal was satisfied that good reason existed for condonation, as the appellant's submissions were not effectively disputed by the respondent, who failed to reply. The Tribunal concluded that there was no undetermined application for condonation before it and the appeal should proceed.

Court Disposition

Condonation was found to have already been granted and the Tribunal was functus officio. The appeal will be rescheduled for hearing.

Orders

  • There was no undetermined application for condonation before the Tribunal.
  • The appeal shall be rescheduled for a hearing in due course and the parties shall be notified of the date, time and venue of the hearing.