Minister of Science and Technology v Bredenkamp and Another (5261/2017) [2018] ZALMPPHC 26 (25 May 2018)

Minister of Science and Technology v Bredenkamp and Another (5261/2017) [2018] ZALMPPHC 26 (25 May 2018)

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act. Exceptional circumstances were present because the assets were intended for community service, were depreciating in value, and the respondents had poor prospects of success on appeal. The applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the order was not executed, as the assets could be lost to the applicant and the community. The respondents would not suffer irreparable harm if the order was executed, as the applicant could guarantee the safety and restoration of the assets. The court exercised its discretion in the interests of justice and granted the application for execution...

Citation
[2018] ZALMPPHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Minister of Science and Technology; Respondent: Chrisma Bredenkamp; Respondent: Wolkberg Fruit Processors (Pty) Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2018
Case Number
5261/2017
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application Under Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act for Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application granted. The judgment and order operate and are executed pending the outcome of the application for leave to appeal and any appeal noted.
Judges
E M Makgoba
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Exceptional Circumstances, Irreparable Harm, Superior Courts Act Section 18
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Exceptional Circumstances Irreparable Harm Superior Courts Act Section 18

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Science and Technology

Applicant

Chrisma Bredenkamp

Respondent

Wolkberg Fruit Processors (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application Under Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act for Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established exceptional circumstances justifying execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the order is not executed.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents will suffer irreparable harm if the order is executed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act. Exceptional circumstances were present because the assets were intended for community service, were depreciating in value, and the respondents had poor prospects of success on appeal. The applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the order was not executed, as the assets could be lost to the applicant and the community. The respondents would not suffer irreparable harm if the order was executed, as the applicant could guarantee the safety and restoration of the assets. The court exercised its discretion in the interests of justice and granted the application for execution...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The judgment and order operate and are executed pending the outcome of the application for leave to appeal and any appeal noted.

Orders

  • The judgment and order of this Court dated 16 March 2018 and delivered on 20 March 2018 shall operate and be executed pending the outcome of the application for leave to appeal, including any appeal noted.
  • The applicant is exempted from furnishing security in terms of Rule 49(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.