Skog NO and Others v Agulus and Others (LCC88/2019) [2021] ZALCC 28 (11 November 2021)

Skog NO and Others v Agulus and Others (LCC88/2019) [2021] ZALCC 28 (11 November 2021)

The court found that the occupiers provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing their application for leave to cross-appeal, namely the time required to secure funding from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. The prospects of success were deemed good, as the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Ceasarstone Sdot.Yam v World of Marble and Granite 2000 clarified that the requirement of 'same parties' for res judicata is not strictly limited to identical parties, but extends to those who had a fair opportunity to participate in the initial litigation. The court accepted that, had this authority been brought to its attention during the original application, the...

Citation
[2021] ZALCC 28
Parties
Applicant: Isedor Skog N.O.; Applicant: Reinette Skog N.O.; Applicant: Hendrik Collins Gerryts N.O.; Respondent: Koos Agulus and 25 Others; Respondent: Drakenstein Municipality; Respondent: Head: Western Cape Provincial Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Case Number
LCC88/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Cross Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to cross-appeal granted.
Judges
M T Ncube
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Condonation, Leave to Cross Appeal, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Abuse of Process
Land and Property Civil Procedure Res Judicata Condonation Leave to Cross Appeal Extension of Security of Tenure Act Abuse of Process

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

Isedor Skog N.O.

Applicant

Reinette Skog N.O.

Applicant

Hendrik Collins Gerryts N.O.

Applicant

Koos Agulus and 25 Others

Respondent

Drakenstein Municipality

Respondent

Head: Western Cape Provincial Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occupiers are entitled to condonation for the late filing of their application for leave to cross-appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the special plea of res judicata should have succeeded in light of the Supreme Court of Appeal's jurisprudence.
  3. 3 Whether the original application constituted an abuse of process and forum shopping.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the occupiers provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing their application for leave to cross-appeal, namely the time required to secure funding from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. The prospects of success were deemed good, as the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Ceasarstone Sdot.Yam v World of Marble and Granite 2000 clarified that the requirement of 'same parties' for res judicata is not strictly limited to identical parties, but extends to those who had a fair opportunity to participate in the initial litigation. The court accepted that, had this authority been brought to its attention during the original application, the...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to cross-appeal granted.

Orders

  • Application for condonation is granted.
  • Leave to cross-appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.