Profert (Pty) Ltd v Vermaak (A09/23) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 18 (13 March 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZAMPMBHC 18
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
- Panel
- Kgoele, Roelofse
- Case number
- A09/23
More details
- Court
- Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
- Panel
- Kgoele, Roelofse
- Case number
- A09/23
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the refusal to grant a default judgment does not constitute a final order and therefore cannot be appealed. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that only final orders or orders with a final effect are susceptible to appeal in terms of section 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Profert (Pty) Ltd
Appellant Counsel: Gerrit Coetzee AttorneysJacob Phillippus Vermaak
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Default Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the refusal to grant a default judgment constitutes a final order susceptible to appeal.
- 02
Whether the appellant is entitled to appeal the refusal of default judgment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the refusal to grant a default judgment by the Regional Court Magistrate was incorrect and that the order should be appealable, as it affected the appellant's claim based on an acknowledgment of debt.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the refusal to grant default judgment was not a final order and therefore not susceptible to appeal under South African procedural law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Superior Courts Act, section 19(a)
Only final orders or orders with a final effect are susceptible to appeal.
- 02
South African case law (not specifically cited in judgment)
A refusal to grant default judgment is not a final order.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the refusal to grant a default judgment does not constitute a final order and therefore cannot be appealed. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that only final orders or orders with a final effect are susceptible to appeal in terms of section 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
Obiter and limits
- The matter was dealt with in terms of section 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act and paragraph 21.3 of the Amended Practice Directives without oral argument.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- The appeal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
MPUMALANGA DIVISION (MAIN SEAT)
Case Number: A09/23
REPORTABLE: YES/ NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED.
13March 2023
In the matter between:
PROFERT (PTY
LTD
Appellant
and
JACOB
PHILLIPPUS VERMAAK
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Coram: Kgoele J et Roelofse AJ
Roelofse AJ:
[1] The appellant seeks to appeal the whole of the judgment of the Regional Court Magistrate sitting in the Regional Court for the Regional Division of Mpumalanga, held at Mbombela (the Court a quo).
[2] The judgment was delivered on 31 January 2022. The appellant’s claim was founded upon an acknowledgment of debt by the respondent in favour of the appellant. The Court a quo refused to grant a default judgment in favour of the appellant against the respondent.
[3] [The refusal to grant a default judgment is not a final order. Only final orders or orders that have a final effect are susceptible to an appeal.
[4] In the premises, the following order is thus made:
The appeal is dismissed.
Roelofse AJ
Acting Judge of the High Court
I agree.
Kgoele J
Judge of the High Court
DATE OF HEARING:
10 March 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
13 March 2023
APPEARANCES
Gerrit Coetzee Attorneys represents the appellant.
The appeal was dealt with in terms of section 19(a) of the Superior Courts Acts and paragraph 21.3 of the Amended Practice Directives of this Division without the hearing of oral argument.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.