Kara NO and Others v Department of Land Affairs (LCC44/98) [2003] ZALCC 10; 2005 (6) SA 563 (LCC) (15 April 2003)

Kara NO and Others v Department of Land Affairs (LCC44/98) [2003] ZALCC 10; 2005 (6) SA 563 (LCC) (15 April 2003)

The court found that, despite the applicants' failure to apply for postponement timeously, fundamental fairness and justice justified granting the postponement due to the complexity and significance of expert valuation evidence in land claims. The prejudice to the respondent could be compensated by an appropriate order for wasted costs. The court expressed displeasure at the late application and warned that future late applications for postponement would be less favourably considered, given the logistical challenges and operational constraints of the Land Claims Court, especially for hearings away from its seat.

Citation
[2003] ZALCC 10
Parties
Applicant: Ebrahim Essop Kara NO; Applicant: Moosa Essop Kara NO; Applicant: Mohammed Hoosen Ismail Kara NO; Respondent: Department of Land Affairs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 April 2003
Case Number
LCC44/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Postponement of Trial
Outcome
Postponement granted; applicants ordered to pay wasted costs.
Judges
Meer, Gildenhuys
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Postponement of Trial, Wasted Costs, Expert Evidence, Group Areas Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Restitution of Land Rights Act Postponement of Trial Wasted Costs Expert Evidence Group Areas Act

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebrahim Essop Kara NO

Applicant

Moosa Essop Kara NO

Applicant

Mohammed Hoosen Ismail Kara NO

Applicant

Department of Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Postponement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' late application for postponement of the trial should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether lack of funding and non-preparedness constitute sufficient grounds for postponement.
  3. 3 What costs order is appropriate in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the applicants' failure to apply for postponement timeously, fundamental fairness and justice justified granting the postponement due to the complexity and significance of expert valuation evidence in land claims. The prejudice to the respondent could be compensated by an appropriate order for wasted costs. The court expressed displeasure at the late application and warned that future late applications for postponement would be less favourably considered, given the logistical challenges and operational constraints of the Land Claims Court, especially for hearings away from its seat.

Court Disposition

Postponement granted; applicants ordered to pay wasted costs.

Orders

  • The hearing set down for 3-14 March 2003 is postponed sine die.
  • Applicants must pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement, including costs of two counsel, counsel's fees for three days of hearing, and wasted qualifying fees of the respondent's expert witnesses.