Matsepes NO and Another v Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein and Others (A220/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 127 (29 July 2019)

Matsepes NO and Another v Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein and Others (A220/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 127 (29 July 2019)

The court found that the appeal had lapsed due to procedural non-compliance and that the application for re-instatement was not pursued, as the appellant indicated the matter was moot. The underlying company was not in liquidation, and the review application had been finalised, rendering the appeal academic with no practical effect. The respondents, who were not parties to the original interdict application, had no right to seek the orders granted in their favour, and their disregard for procedural rules contributed to the protracted litigation. Both parties were responsible for the delay and unnecessary proceedings. Accordingly, the application for re-instatement was struck from the...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 127
Parties
Appellant: TV Matsepes N.O.; Appellant: OA Noordman N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein; Respondent: P Fourie N.O.; Respondent: Sarel Johannes Wessels; Respondent: Elizabeth Maria Venter
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2019
Case Number
A220/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Re Instatement of Lapsed Appeal; Costs Determination
Outcome
Application for re-instatement of the appeal struck from the roll; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
DAFFUE, LOUBSER, POHL
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Appeal, Locus Standi, Costs Order, Practical Effect, Urgent Interdict
Civil Procedure Reinstatement of Appeal Locus Standi Costs Order Practical Effect Urgent Interdict

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TV Matsepes N.O.

Appellant

OA Noordman N.O.

Appellant

The Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein

Respondent

P Fourie N.O.

Respondent

Sarel Johannes Wessels

Respondent

Elizabeth Maria Venter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Re Instatement of Lapsed Appeal; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be re-instated after lapsing due to procedural non-compliance.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal has any practical effect given subsequent developments.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents had locus standi to oppose the appeal and claim costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appeal had lapsed due to procedural non-compliance and that the application for re-instatement was not pursued, as the appellant indicated the matter was moot. The underlying company was not in liquidation, and the review application had been finalised, rendering the appeal academic with no practical effect. The respondents, who were not parties to the original interdict application, had no right to seek the orders granted in their favour, and their disregard for procedural rules contributed to the protracted litigation. Both parties were responsible for the delay and unnecessary proceedings. Accordingly, the application for re-instatement was struck from the...

Court Disposition

Application for re-instatement of the appeal struck from the roll; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application for re-instatement of the appeal is struck from the roll.
  • Each of the parties shall be liable for the payment of their own costs.