Chater and Others v Meyer (A881/07) [2010] ZAGPPHC 21 (23 March 2010)

Chater and Others v Meyer (A881/07) [2010] ZAGPPHC 21 (23 March 2010)

The court held that the provisional sentence judgment granted by Patel J was not appealable, as it did not meet the requirements of finality, definitiveness, and non-susceptibility to alteration set out in Zweni. The appellants' reliance on various authorities was misplaced, as those cases were either distinguishable or incorrectly applied. The notice of application for leave to appeal was a nullity and did not suspend the operation or execution of the provisional sentence judgment. The respondent was entitled to proceed with execution without setting aside the notice. The court further held that the issue of appealability could be decided by any competent court, not only the court...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 21
Parties
Appellant: Gary Brian Chater; Appellant: Chater Technologies CC; Appellant: Erf 25 Bromhof CC; Respondent: Johannes Frederick Meyer
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2010
Case Number
A881/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Orders in Application and Counter Application Following Provisional Sentence Proceedings
Outcome
The appellants' application for condonation is dismissed and their appeal is struck off the roll. The respondent's cross-appeal is upheld. Declarators are granted that the notice of appeal is void ab initio and unsustainable in law, and that the warrant of execution and attachment are valid and enforceable. The...
Judges
B.R. Southwood, A.P. Ledwaba, A.A. Louw
Legal Topics
Provisional Sentence, Appealability, Condonation, Warrant of Execution, Rule 49 11, Liquid Document
Civil Procedure Provisional Sentence Appealability Condonation Warrant of Execution Rule 49 11 Liquid Document

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Brian Chater

Appellant

Chater Technologies CC

Appellant

Erf 25 Bromhof CC

Appellant

Johannes Frederick Meyer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Orders in Application and Counter Application Following Provisional Sentence Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisional sentence judgment granted on 13 December 2006 is appealable under section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959.
  2. 2 Whether the delivery of the notice of application for leave to appeal suspended the operation and execution of the provisional sentence judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was obliged to set aside the application for leave to appeal before executing upon the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the provisional sentence judgment granted by Patel J was not appealable, as it did not meet the requirements of finality, definitiveness, and non-susceptibility to alteration set out in Zweni. The appellants' reliance on various authorities was misplaced, as those cases were either distinguishable or incorrectly applied. The notice of application for leave to appeal was a nullity and did not suspend the operation or execution of the provisional sentence judgment. The respondent was entitled to proceed with execution without setting aside the notice. The court further held that the issue of appealability could be decided by any competent court, not only the court...

Court Disposition

The appellants' application for condonation is dismissed and their appeal is struck off the roll. The respondent's cross-appeal is upheld. Declarators are granted that the notice of appeal is void ab initio and unsustainable in law, and that the warrant of execution and attachment are valid and enforceable. The...

Orders

  • The appellants' application for condonation is dismissed and their appeal is struck off the roll.
  • The respondent's cross-appeal is upheld.