Unica Iron and Steel (Pty) Ltd and Another v The Minister of Trade and Industry and Another (1332/21) [2023] ZASCA 42 (31 March 2023)

Unica Iron and Steel (Pty) Ltd and Another v The Minister of Trade and Industry and Another (1332/21) [2023] ZASCA 42 (31 March 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order declaring the attorney authorised to act was interlocutory and did not meet the requirements for appealability under s 16(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The order was not final, definitive of the parties' rights, nor did it dispose of any portion of the relief...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 42
Parties
Appellant: Unica Iron and Steel (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Mohamed Asif Qasim; Respondent: The Minister of Trade and Industry; Respondent: The Manufacturing Development Board
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Case Number
1332/21
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal not entertained; matter struck from the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Van der Merwe, Schippers, Mothle, Weiner, Goosen
Legal Topics
Attorney Mandate, Interlocutory Orders, Appealability, State Attorney Act, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attorney Mandate Interlocutory Orders Appealability State Attorney Act Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Unica Iron and Steel (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Mohamed Asif Qasim

Appellant

The Minister of Trade and Industry

Respondent

The Manufacturing Development Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order declaring the attorney authorised to act is appealable under s 16(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the interests of justice require the order to be regarded as appealable.
  3. 3 Whether the State Attorney has the power to appoint and instruct a private attorney in the same district where the State Attorney has an office.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order declaring the attorney authorised to act was interlocutory and did not meet the requirements for appealability under s 16(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The order was not final, definitive of the parties' rights, nor did it dispose of any portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. Furthermore, the agreed legal question was academic and bore no relation to the facts, as the evidence showed that Rudman & Associates had been appointed by the DTI, not the State Attorney. There was no mandate from the State Attorney, and the issue raised was abstract. The interests of justice did not require the order to be regarded as appealable....

Court Disposition

Appeal not entertained; matter struck from the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll with costs, including the costs of two counsel.