Heppel v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (15860/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 864 (21 September 2016)

Heppel v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (15860/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 864 (21 September 2016)

The court found that the previous order granting leave to appeal to the full bench of the High Court was made in error, as section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act requires that appeals from a court of first instance consisting of more than one judge must be directed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal was issued after the commencement of the Superior Courts Act, and thus the provisions of the Act applied. The requirements of Rule 42 for rescinding or varying an order were satisfied, as both parties were notified and concurred with the proposed amendment. Accordingly, the erroneous order was recalled and substituted with leave to appeal to the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 864
Parties
Applicant: Warrick Leslie Visser Heppel; Respondent: The Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2016
Case Number
15860/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Order Recalling and Substituting Previous Leave to Appeal Order
Outcome
Order granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and recalling previous order.
Judges
De Vos, Mogotsi, Eedwaba
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act, Recall of Order, Rule 42 Variation
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act Recall of Order Rule 42 Variation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warrick Leslie Visser Heppel

Applicant

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Order Recalling and Substituting Previous Leave to Appeal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should have been granted to the full bench of the High Court or to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the previous order granting leave to appeal to the full bench was erroneously made and should be recalled under Rule 42.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for rescinding or varying an order under Rule 42 have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the previous order granting leave to appeal to the full bench of the High Court was made in error, as section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act requires that appeals from a court of first instance consisting of more than one judge must be directed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal was issued after the commencement of the Superior Courts Act, and thus the provisions of the Act applied. The requirements of Rule 42 for rescinding or varying an order were satisfied, as both parties were notified and concurred with the proposed amendment. Accordingly, the erroneous order was recalled and substituted with leave to appeal to the...

Court Disposition

Order granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and recalling previous order.

Orders

  • The order granted on 25 February 2014 is recalled and substituted.
  • Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.