Janse van Rensburg v Obiang and Another (A338/2018, 22470/2015) [2019] ZAWCHC 53 (10 May 2019)

Janse van Rensburg v Obiang and Another (A338/2018, 22470/2015) [2019] ZAWCHC 53 (10 May 2019)

The court held that the applicant's challenge to the respondent's power of attorney was without merit. Authentication under rule 63(2) is not mandatory, as rule 63(4) allows the registrar or court to accept a document as sufficiently authenticated if satisfied with its genuineness. The registrar accepted the power of attorney and set the appeal down for hearing, indicating satisfaction with its authenticity. The applicant had previously accepted the power of attorney and did not challenge the respondent's attorneys' authority during earlier proceedings, thus forfeiting the right to raise a purely formal objection at this stage. The evidence supported the probability that the respondent...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 53
Parties
Applicant: Daniël Welman Janse van Rensburg; Respondent: Theodorin Nguema Obiang; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Case Number
A338/2018, 22470/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal Prior to Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Goliath, Binns-Ward, Fortuin
Legal Topics
Authentication of Documents, Power of Attorney, Security for Costs, Rule 7 Uniform Rules, Rule 49 Uniform Rules
Civil Procedure Authentication of Documents Power of Attorney Security for Costs Rule 7 Uniform Rules Rule 49 Uniform Rules

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniël Welman Janse van Rensburg

Applicant

Theodorin Nguema Obiang

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal Prior to Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's appeal should be struck out due to failure to file a properly authenticated power of attorney.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's appeal should be struck out due to failure to provide security for costs before filing the record.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's challenge to the respondent's power of attorney was without merit. Authentication under rule 63(2) is not mandatory, as rule 63(4) allows the registrar or court to accept a document as sufficiently authenticated if satisfied with its genuineness. The registrar accepted the power of attorney and set the appeal down for hearing, indicating satisfaction with its authenticity. The applicant had previously accepted the power of attorney and did not challenge the respondent's attorneys' authority during earlier proceedings, thus forfeiting the right to raise a purely formal objection at this stage. The evidence supported the probability that the respondent...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.