KP Seabi v Sasfin Bank Ltd (A90/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 291 (24 February 2009)

KP Seabi v Sasfin Bank Ltd (A90/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 291 (24 February 2009)

The court found that the appellant failed to comply with procedural requirements by not delivering heads of argument or a notice of set down, despite the matter being properly enrolled for hearing. The appellant and his attorney ignored repeated correspondence and requests from the respondent and the court, demonstrating unprofessional and discourteous conduct. The court held that such conduct wastes judicial resources and warrants censure. Consequently, the appeal was struck from the roll, and a special costs order on the attorney and client scale was justified.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 291
Parties
Appellant: KP Seabi t/a Seabit & Associates; Respondent: Sasfin Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2009
Case Number
A90/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll with costs awarded against the appellant on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Southwood, Makgoka
Legal Topics
Failure to Prosecute Appeal, Heads of Argument, Notice of Set Down, Costs Award, Striking From Roll
Civil Procedure Failure to Prosecute Appeal Heads of Argument Notice of Set Down Costs Award Striking From Roll

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KP Seabi t/a Seabit & Associates

Appellant

Sasfin Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's failure to deliver heads of argument and notice of set down justified striking the appeal from the roll.
  2. 2 Whether a special costs order as between attorney and client should be granted due to the appellant's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to comply with procedural requirements by not delivering heads of argument or a notice of set down, despite the matter being properly enrolled for hearing. The appellant and his attorney ignored repeated correspondence and requests from the respondent and the court, demonstrating unprofessional and discourteous conduct. The court held that such conduct wastes judicial resources and warrants censure. Consequently, the appeal was struck from the roll, and a special costs order on the attorney and client scale was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll with costs awarded against the appellant on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal on the scale as between attorney and client.