Mayne v Main (182/99) [2001] ZASCA 35; [2001] 3 All SA 157 (A); 2001 (2) SA 1239 (SCA) (23 March 2001)

Mayne v Main (182/99) [2001] ZASCA 35; [2001] 3 All SA 157 (A); 2001 (2) SA 1239 (SCA) (23 March 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's prolonged presence in Johannesburg, the establishment of a business base, acquisition of a vehicle, and romantic attachment to Mrs Rowand demonstrated a sufficient degree of stability and permanence to constitute residence under section 19(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act. The respondent's claim of residence elsewhere was not supported by credible evidence, and his subjective intention did not outweigh the objective facts. The appellant discharged the onus of proving residence, and the Witwatersrand Local Division had jurisdiction to entertain the action. The appeal was upheld, and the special plea of non-jurisdiction was dismissed.

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 35
Parties
Appellant: J E M Mayne; Respondent: C P M Main
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2001
Case Number
182/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court After Special Plea of Non Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of Full Court set aside; special plea of non-jurisdiction dismissed.
Judges
Smalberger, Nienaber, Farlam, Mpati, Mthiyane
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Residence, Supreme Court Act Section 19, Onus of Proof
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Residence Supreme Court Act Section 19 Onus of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J E M Mayne

Appellant

C P M Main

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court After Special Plea of Non Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Witwatersrand Local Division had jurisdiction over the respondent based on residence under section 19(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was residing in Johannesburg at the time summons was served.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proving residence for jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's prolonged presence in Johannesburg, the establishment of a business base, acquisition of a vehicle, and romantic attachment to Mrs Rowand demonstrated a sufficient degree of stability and permanence to constitute residence under section 19(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act. The respondent's claim of residence elsewhere was not supported by credible evidence, and his subjective intention did not outweigh the objective facts. The appellant discharged the onus of proving residence, and the Witwatersrand Local Division had jurisdiction to entertain the action. The appeal was upheld, and the special plea of non-jurisdiction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of Full Court set aside; special plea of non-jurisdiction dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds, with costs.
  • The order of the Full Court is set aside and substituted with: (a) The appeal is allowed, with costs. (b) The order of the trial court is set aside and substituted with: 'The special plea is dismissed, with costs.'