Monyeki and Another v Regional Land Claims Commission and Another (LCC18/2004) [2008] ZALCC 6 (1 January 2008)

Monyeki and Another v Regional Land Claims Commission and Another (LCC18/2004) [2008] ZALCC 6 (1 January 2008)

The court held that the refusal of a postponement and the refusal to re-open the plaintiffs' case were not appealable judgments or orders. The plaintiffs failed to comply with procedural requirements, including submitting a formal application and a summary of the proposed evidence. The decision did not have a final or definitive effect on the rights of the parties nor did it dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The authorities cited establish that such rulings are interlocutory and not susceptible to appeal. The application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospects of success, and the plaintiffs were aware of the procedural requirements but failed to meet them....

Citation
[2008] ZALCC 6
Parties
Applicant: S J Monyeki; Applicant: E M Monyeki (Makgai); Respondent: Regional Land Claims Commission; Respondent: Portion 608 New Belgium CC
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2008
Case Number
LCC18/2004
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Postponement and Re Opening of Case
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gildenhuys, Pienaar
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Leave to Appeal, Postponement, Reopening of Case
Land and Property Civil Procedure Restitution of Land Rights Act Leave to Appeal Postponement Reopening of Case

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

S J Monyeki

Applicant

E M Monyeki (Makgai)

Applicant

Regional Land Claims Commission

Respondent

Portion 608 New Belgium CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Postponement and Re Opening of Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of a postponement and re-opening of the plaintiffs' case is appealable as a judgment or order.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs complied with procedural requirements for calling a further witness.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal has reasonable prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the refusal of a postponement and the refusal to re-open the plaintiffs' case were not appealable judgments or orders. The plaintiffs failed to comply with procedural requirements, including submitting a formal application and a summary of the proposed evidence. The decision did not have a final or definitive effect on the rights of the parties nor did it dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The authorities cited establish that such rulings are interlocutory and not susceptible to appeal. The application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospects of success, and the plaintiffs were aware of the procedural requirements but failed to meet them....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs are ordered jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the second defendant's costs.