Jan van Heerden & Seuns Bk and Others v Senwes Beperrk and Others (1635/99, 1643/99, 1664/99, 1715/99, 1716/99, 1724/99, 1737/99) [2005] ZANCHC 109 (28 October 2005)

Jan van Heerden & Seuns Bk and Others v Senwes Beperrk and Others (1635/99, 1643/99, 1664/99, 1715/99, 1716/99, 1724/99, 1737/99) [2005] ZANCHC 109 (28 October 2005)

The court found that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the interpretation and application of section 169A of the Cooperatives Act, the acceptance of expert evidence, and the allocation of the burden of proof. These issues are novel and complex, and another court could reasonably reach a different conclusion. The matter is of significant importance, not only to the litigants but also to the broader agricultural sector and other pending cases. The application for security for costs was dismissed as the High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such an order under Supreme Court of Appeal Rule 9.

Citation
[2005] ZANCHC 109
Parties
Plaintiff: Jan van Heerden & Seuns BK; Plaintiff: Charles J Engelbrecht; Plaintiff: Louis J Fourie; Plaintiff: Charles H du P Martinson; Plaintiff: Tielman C L Meyer; Plaintiff: Susanna K Otto N.O.; Plaintiff: Petrus P V van Wyk; Respondent: Senwes Beperk; Respondent: Senwesbel; Respondent: Vaalharts Koöperasie Beperk; Respondent: PricewaterhouseCoopers Ingelyf
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2005
Case Number
1635/99, 1643/99, 1664/99, 1715/99, 1716/99, 1724/99, 1737/99
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted to the first, second, and third respondents against the judgment and order of 19 August 2005. The application for security for costs is dismissed.
Judges
Majiedt R
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Cooperatives Act, Burden of Proof, Expert Evidence, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Cooperatives Act Burden of Proof Expert Evidence Security for Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan van Heerden & Seuns BK

Plaintiff

Charles J Engelbrecht

Plaintiff

Louis J Fourie

Plaintiff

Charles H du P Martinson

Plaintiff

Tielman C L Meyer

Plaintiff

Susanna K Otto N.O.

Plaintiff

Petrus P V van Wyk

Plaintiff

Senwes Beperk

Respondent

Senwesbel

Respondent

Vaalharts Koöperasie Beperk

Respondent

PricewaterhouseCoopers Ingelyf

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment and order of 19 August 2005.
  2. 2 Whether the findings regarding the application of section 169A of the Cooperatives Act were correct.
  3. 3 Whether the acceptance of expert evidence by Keeve was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the interpretation and application of section 169A of the Cooperatives Act, the acceptance of expert evidence, and the allocation of the burden of proof. These issues are novel and complex, and another court could reasonably reach a different conclusion. The matter is of significant importance, not only to the litigants but also to the broader agricultural sector and other pending cases. The application for security for costs was dismissed as the High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such an order under Supreme Court of Appeal Rule 9.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted to the first, second, and third respondents against the judgment and order of 19 August 2005. The application for security for costs is dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the first, second, and third respondents against the judgment and order of 19 August 2005, on the grounds set out in their notice of application for leave to appeal.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.