Snyman v Snyman (25/1992) [1994] ZASCA 70 (20 May 1994)

Snyman v Snyman (25/1992) [1994] ZASCA 70 (20 May 1994)

The court held that the breaches of the rules regarding the preparation and filing of the record were egregious and that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delays and errors. The failures were solely attributable to the appellant's attorneys, whose conduct was described as shockingly negligent and inexcusable. The court found that the explanations offered were either wholly inadequate or entirely absent, and that the record remained defective even after multiple attempts to rectify it. The court reaffirmed the principle that condonation may be refused in cases of flagrant breaches, regardless of the merits of the appeal or the fact that the blame lies with the attorneys....

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 70
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Paulus Snyman; Respondent: Hester Snyman
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 1994
Case Number
25/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation of Non Compliance With Court Rules
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs, including costs of appeal and costs of two counsel.
Judges
Botha, Kumleben, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Condonation, Non Compliance With Court Rules, Record Preparation, Attorney Negligence
Civil Procedure Condonation Non Compliance With Court Rules Record Preparation Attorney Negligence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Paulus Snyman

Appellant

Hester Snyman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation of Non Compliance With Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the appellant's non-compliance with the rules regarding the filing of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the failures and delays in preparing and submitting the record can be excused given the conduct of the appellant's attorneys.
  3. 3 Whether the merits of the appeal should be considered in light of the procedural breaches.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the breaches of the rules regarding the preparation and filing of the record were egregious and that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delays and errors. The failures were solely attributable to the appellant's attorneys, whose conduct was described as shockingly negligent and inexcusable. The court found that the explanations offered were either wholly inadequate or entirely absent, and that the record remained defective even after multiple attempts to rectify it. The court reaffirmed the principle that condonation may be refused in cases of flagrant breaches, regardless of the merits of the appeal or the fact that the blame lies with the attorneys....

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs, including costs of appeal and costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appellant's application for condonation of non-compliance with the rules is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of the appeal and the costs of two counsel.