Ferreira v Ntshingila (552/87) [1989] ZASCA 149; [1990] 2 All SA 47 (A) (21 November 1989)

Ferreira v Ntshingila (552/87) [1989] ZASCA 149; [1990] 2 All SA 47 (A) (21 November 1989)

The Court found that the appellant and his attorney had been grossly negligent in prosecuting the appeal, with repeated and unexplained delays in noting the appeal, filing the record, and furnishing security. The explanations provided were neither full nor satisfactory, and the appellant himself was not blameless, having disregarded warnings from his attorney. The Court emphasized that the interests of finality for the respondent and the flagrant non-compliance with procedural rules outweighed any prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the applications for condonation were dismissed with costs, including the respondent's costs of appeal.

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 149
Parties
Appellant: George Frederick Ferreira; Respondent: Maria Ntshingila
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 1989
Case Number
552/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation of Late Noting of Appeal and Late Filing of Record/security
Outcome
Applications for condonation of the late noting of appeal, late filing of the record, and late furnishing of security dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hefer, Nestadt, Friedman
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Noting of Appeal, Late Filing of Record, Security for Costs, Attorney Negligence
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Noting of Appeal Late Filing of Record Security for Costs Attorney Negligence

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Frederick Ferreira

Appellant

Maria Ntshingila

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation of Late Noting of Appeal and Late Filing of Record/security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's applications for condonation of the late noting of appeal, late filing of the record, and late furnishing of security should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the explanations provided for the delays were full and satisfactory.
  3. 3 Whether the gross negligence of the appellant's attorney and the appellant's own conduct should be excused.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the appellant and his attorney had been grossly negligent in prosecuting the appeal, with repeated and unexplained delays in noting the appeal, filing the record, and furnishing security. The explanations provided were neither full nor satisfactory, and the appellant himself was not blameless, having disregarded warnings from his attorney. The Court emphasized that the interests of finality for the respondent and the flagrant non-compliance with procedural rules outweighed any prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the applications for condonation were dismissed with costs, including the respondent's costs of appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for condonation of the late noting of appeal, late filing of the record, and late furnishing of security dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applications for condonation are dismissed with costs.
  • The costs order includes the respondent's costs of appeal.