Pricewaterhouse Coopers Inc and Others v Van Vollenhoven NO and Another (261/09) [2009] ZASCA 166; [2010] 2 All SA 256 (SCA) (1 December 2009)

Pricewaterhouse Coopers Inc and Others v Van Vollenhoven NO and Another (261/09) [2009] ZASCA 166; [2010] 2 All SA 256 (SCA) (1 December 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable and comprehensive explanation for the delay in bringing the review application. The explanation that the application was deliberately delayed due to cost and strategic considerations was found to be unconvincing, as the effort and expense involved were minimal relative to the scale of the litigation. Furthermore, the appellants did not take any steps to notify the respondents or seek an extension during the delay. The court found that the interests of justice did not warrant an extension of the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, and that the respondents would be prejudiced if the security amount was...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 166
Parties
Appellant: Pricewaterhouse Coopers Inc; Appellant: Hoek & Wiehahn; Appellant: Wiehahn Meyernel; Appellant: Pricewaterhouse Meyernel; Appellant: Price Waterhouse; Respondent: G M Van Vollenhoven N.O.; Respondent: National Potato Co-operative Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2009
Case Number
261/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Streicher, Brand, Bosielo, Leach, Griesel
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review, Security for Costs, Condonation, Delay in Review Applications
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review Security for Costs Condonation Delay in Review Applications

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

Parties

Pricewaterhouse Coopers Inc

Appellant

Hoek & Wiehahn

Appellant

Wiehahn Meyernel

Appellant

Pricewaterhouse Meyernel

Appellant

Price Waterhouse

Appellant

G M Van Vollenhoven N.O.

Respondent

National Potato Co-operative Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for review of the taxing master's decision was brought within the prescribed 180-day period under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the court should extend the 180-day period for instituting review proceedings in the interests of justice.
  3. 3 Whether the explanation for the delay in bringing the review application was reasonable and sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable and comprehensive explanation for the delay in bringing the review application. The explanation that the application was deliberately delayed due to cost and strategic considerations was found to be unconvincing, as the effort and expense involved were minimal relative to the scale of the litigation. Furthermore, the appellants did not take any steps to notify the respondents or seek an extension during the delay. The court found that the interests of justice did not warrant an extension of the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, and that the respondents would be prejudiced if the security amount was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.