Minister of Trade and Industry and Klein NO and Another (695/2008) [2009] ZASCA 77; [2009] 4 All SA 328 (SCA) (1 June 2009)

Minister of Trade and Industry and Klein NO and Another (695/2008) [2009] ZASCA 77; [2009] 4 All SA 328 (SCA) (1 June 2009)

The appellant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in prosecuting the appeal. The delays were not adequately explained, and repeated offers of assistance from the respondents were ignored. Even if the explanation had been acceptable, the appeal would have no practical effect or result, as the report at issue had already been released and the underlying dispute was moot. The legal issue the appellant sought to have decided was unlikely to arise again, and there was no justification for the respondents to bear the costs of an academic dispute. Accordingly, condonation was refused and costs, including those for two counsel, were awarded against...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 77
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Trade and Industry; Respondent: N Klein N.O; Respondent: H M Hamman N.O
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2009
Case Number
695/2008
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation refused with costs, including costs occasioned by the appeal and employment of two counsel.
Judges
Farlam, Cloete, Ponnan, Leach, Bosielo
Legal Topics
Condonation, Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal, Practical Effect, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Condonation Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal Practical Effect 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Trade and Industry

Appellant

N Klein N.O

Respondent

H M Hamman N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Reinstatement of Lapsed Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the record and heads of argument should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal would have any practical effect or result given the mootness of the underlying dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in prosecuting the appeal. The delays were not adequately explained, and repeated offers of assistance from the respondents were ignored. Even if the explanation had been acceptable, the appeal would have no practical effect or result, as the report at issue had already been released and the underlying dispute was moot. The legal issue the appellant sought to have decided was unlikely to arise again, and there was no justification for the respondents to bear the costs of an academic dispute. Accordingly, condonation was refused and costs, including those for two counsel, were awarded against...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused with costs, including costs occasioned by the appeal and employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused with costs, including the costs occasioned by the appeal and the employment of two counsel.