Pretblank Bouwerke (Eiendoms) Bpk. v Van Coller (28/82) [1984] ZASCA 74 (30 May 1984)

Pretblank Bouwerke (Eiendoms) Bpk. v Van Coller (28/82) [1984] ZASCA 74 (30 May 1984)

The court found that the appellant's attorney had provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the failure to comply with the rules regarding the filing of the notice of appeal and the record copies. The oversight was not deliberate, and the delay in filing the record was minimal and caused by circumstances beyond the appellant's control. The respondent's objection regarding the completeness of the record was dismissed, as the disputed document had never been formally accepted as part of the pleadings by the trial court. On the merits, the court held that the debt for additional payment under the contract became due and payable at the end of December 1976, when the appellant...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 74
Parties
Appellant: Pretblank Bouwerke (Eiendoms) Beperk; Respondent: Johannes Theodorus van Coller
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1984
Case Number
28/82
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; condonation granted; judgment for the appellant with costs.
Judges
Trengove, Cillié, Viljoen, Smuts, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Filing, Prescription of Debt, Contractual Dispute, Special Plea of Prescription
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Condonation of Late Filing Prescription of Debt Contractual Dispute Special Plea of Prescription

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pretblank Bouwerke (Eiendoms) Beperk

Appellant

Johannes Theodorus van Coller

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the appellant's failure to comply with the rules regarding the filing of the notice of appeal and record copies.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's claim for additional payment under the contract had prescribed by the time the action was instituted.
  3. 3 Whether the contractual debt became due and payable at the end of December 1976.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's attorney had provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the failure to comply with the rules regarding the filing of the notice of appeal and the record copies. The oversight was not deliberate, and the delay in filing the record was minimal and caused by circumstances beyond the appellant's control. The respondent's objection regarding the completeness of the record was dismissed, as the disputed document had never been formally accepted as part of the pleadings by the trial court. On the merits, the court held that the debt for additional payment under the contract became due and payable at the end of December 1976, when the appellant...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; condonation granted; judgment for the appellant with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • The appellant must pay the wasted costs of the respondent, excluding the costs of the record copies.