Mtshayeni v Eastern Cape Development Corporation; In re: Mtshayeni v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (CA&R42/13) [2016] ZAECMHC 7 (31 March 2016)

Mtshayeni v Eastern Cape Development Corporation; In re: Mtshayeni v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (CA&R42/13) [2016] ZAECMHC 7 (31 March 2016)

The court held that the procedural provisions of the Superior Courts Act apply to all cases after their commencement, and that the right to apply for leave to appeal under the repealed Supreme Court Act was not a vested right. Section 52 of the new Act does not preserve the old procedure for this matter, as judgment had already been passed in the magistrates' court before the new Act commenced. The intention of the legislature, as reflected in the language of the new Act, was to require special leave from the Supreme Court of Appeal for appeals from the High Court sitting as an appeal court. The application for leave to appeal and the Rule 42 application were therefore incompetent, and...

Citation
[2016] ZAECMHC 7
Parties
Applicant: Nombuyiselo Agnes Mtshayeni; Respondent: Eastern Cape Development Corporation
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2016
Case Number
CA&R42/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Rule 42 Variation After Unsuccessful Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal and Rule 42 application dismissed; counter-application succeeds; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
Nhlangulela, Majiki
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Statutory Interpretation, Retrospective Application of Statutes, Rule 42 Variation, Jurisdiction of High Court
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Statutory Interpretation Retrospective Application of Statutes Rule 42 Variation Jurisdiction of High Court

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nombuyiselo Agnes Mtshayeni

Applicant

Eastern Cape Development Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Rule 42 Variation After Unsuccessful Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for leave to appeal after the repeal of the Supreme Court Act.
  2. 2 Whether section 52 of the Superior Courts Act preserves the right to apply for leave to appeal under the repealed Supreme Court Act.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal and the Rule 42 application were competent in light of the new statutory regime.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the procedural provisions of the Superior Courts Act apply to all cases after their commencement, and that the right to apply for leave to appeal under the repealed Supreme Court Act was not a vested right. Section 52 of the new Act does not preserve the old procedure for this matter, as judgment had already been passed in the magistrates' court before the new Act commenced. The intention of the legislature, as reflected in the language of the new Act, was to require special leave from the Supreme Court of Appeal for appeals from the High Court sitting as an appeal court. The application for leave to appeal and the Rule 42 application were therefore incompetent, and...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal and Rule 42 application dismissed; counter-application succeeds; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The application in terms of Rule 42 is dismissed.
  • The counter-application succeeds.