Luke M Tembani and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (167/2021) [2022] ZASCA 70; 2023 (1) SA 432 (SCA) (20 May 2022)

Luke M Tembani and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (167/2021) [2022] ZASCA 70; 2023 (1) SA 432 (SCA) (20 May 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in upholding the exception based on causation. The high court conflated factual and legal causation and failed to properly analyse the issues raised. Exception proceedings are inappropriate for deciding complex factual and legal issues, especially in novel delictual claims. The dismissal of an exception is not appealable, and the conclusion that 'no order is required to be made' in a conditional application is not an appealable order. The appeal was upheld, the cross-appeal was struck from the roll, and the order of the high court was set aside and replaced with a dismissal of the exception with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 70
Parties
Appellant: Luke M Tembani; Appellant: LMT Estates (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Wynand Hart; Appellant: Queensdale Enterprises (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Madoda Enterprises (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Klipdrift Enterprises (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Mike Campbell (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Richard Thomas Etheridge; Appellant: Andrew Kockott; Appellant: Tengwe Estates (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Christopher Mellish Jarrett; Appellant: Stunula Ranching (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Luchabi Ranch (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Larry Cumming; Appellant: France Farm (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Michael Ian Patrick Odendaal; Appellant: Deborah Louise Odendaal; Appellant: Grassflats Farm (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Murik Marketing (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Gideon Stephanus Theron; Appellant: Eben Haeser (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Eden Farm (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Peter Henning; Appellant: Chiredzi Ranching (PVT) LTD; Appellant: Bataleurs Peak Farm Holdings (PVT) LTD; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2022
Case Number
167/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; cross-appeal struck from the roll; high court order set aside and replaced with dismissal of exception with costs.
Judges
Ponnan, Molemela, Musi, Meyer, Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Causation in Delict, Novel Delictual Claims, Bill of Rights Limitation, Prescription, Development of Common Law
Delict Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Exception Procedure Causation in Delict Novel Delictual Claims Bill of Rights Limitation Prescription +1 more

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke M Tembani

Appellant

LMT Estates (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Wynand Hart

Appellant

Queensdale Enterprises (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Madoda Enterprises (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Klipdrift Enterprises (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Mike Campbell (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Richard Thomas Etheridge

Appellant

Andrew Kockott

Appellant

Tengwe Estates (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Christopher Mellish Jarrett

Appellant

Stunula Ranching (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Luchabi Ranch (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Larry Cumming

Appellant

France Farm (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Michael Ian Patrick Odendaal

Appellant

Deborah Louise Odendaal

Appellant

Grassflats Farm (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Murik Marketing (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Gideon Stephanus Theron

Appellant

Eben Haeser (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Eden Farm (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Peter Henning

Appellant

Chiredzi Ranching (PVT) LTD

Appellant

Bataleurs Peak Farm Holdings (PVT) LTD

Appellant

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the high court was correct in upholding the exception based on causation.
  2. 2 Whether exception proceedings are appropriate to decide the factual and legal issues raised in this matter.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of an exception is appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in upholding the exception based on causation. The high court conflated factual and legal causation and failed to properly analyse the issues raised. Exception proceedings are inappropriate for deciding complex factual and legal issues, especially in novel delictual claims. The dismissal of an exception is not appealable, and the conclusion that 'no order is required to be made' in a conditional application is not an appealable order. The appeal was upheld, the cross-appeal was struck from the roll, and the order of the high court was set aside and replaced with a dismissal of the exception with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; cross-appeal struck from the roll; high court order set aside and replaced with dismissal of exception with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld, and the cross-appeal is struck from the roll, in each instance with costs, including those of two counsel.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with: 'The defendants’ exception to the plaintiffs’ second amended particulars of claim dated 18 March 2020 is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel.'