Macheke v Pooe (Appeal) (A7/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 405 (29 April 2025)

Macheke v Pooe (Appeal) (A7/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 405 (29 April 2025)

The appeal was not prosecuted within the time limits prescribed by Uniform Rule 49(2), as the notice of appeal was filed after the twenty-day period and no condonation or reinstatement application was brought. The court cannot, on its own accord, grant an extension or reinstate a lapsed appeal without such an application, as this would deprive the respondent of the opportunity to oppose. The absence of a proper appeal record further compounded the procedural defects. Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal, which stands to be struck off the roll with costs.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 405
Parties
Appellant: Tiyani Stanley Macheke; Respondent: Mpho Rachel Pooe
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
A7/2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Full Court
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
Van der Schyff, Bam, Moshoana
Legal Topics
Uniform Rule 49, Condonation, Reinstatement of Appeal, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Uniform Rule 49 Condonation Reinstatement of Appeal Costs Order

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

Tiyani Stanley Macheke

Appellant

Mpho Rachel Pooe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was properly prosecuted within the time limits prescribed by Uniform Rule 49(2).
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a condonation or reinstatement application precludes the court from hearing the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal record was properly filed in accordance with the rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was not prosecuted within the time limits prescribed by Uniform Rule 49(2), as the notice of appeal was filed after the twenty-day period and no condonation or reinstatement application was brought. The court cannot, on its own accord, grant an extension or reinstate a lapsed appeal without such an application, as this would deprive the respondent of the opportunity to oppose. The absence of a proper appeal record further compounded the procedural defects. Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal, which stands to be struck off the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll with costs.