Union Wine Ltd. v E Snell & Co Ltd. (324/90) [1991] ZASCA 196 (29 November 1991)

Union Wine Ltd. v E Snell & Co Ltd. (324/90) [1991] ZASCA 196 (29 November 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's non-compliance with the rules regarding the timeous filing of the notice of appeal, appeal record, and power of attorney was flagrant and gross. The explanations provided by the appellant were vague, irrelevant, and unconvincing, and did not justify the delays. The appellant failed to prioritize compliance with appellate procedures and did not act promptly upon being alerted to the non-compliance. The Court held that, irrespective of the merits of the appeal, the applications for condonation should be refused. Consequently, the appeal was struck off the roll with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 196
Parties
Appellant: Union Wine Limited; Respondent: E Snell & Co Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 1991
Case Number
324/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation and Appeal Struck From Roll
Outcome
Applications for condonation dismissed; appeal struck off the roll with costs.
Judges
Corbett, Hefer, Nestadt, Nicholas, Harms
Legal Topics
Condonation of Non Compliance, Late Filing of Notice of Appeal, Appeal Record Lodgement, Power of Attorney Requirement
Civil Procedure Condonation of Non Compliance Late Filing of Notice of Appeal Appeal Record Lodgement Power of Attorney Requirement

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union Wine Limited

Appellant

E Snell & Co Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Condonation and Appeal Struck From Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's non-compliance with the rules regarding the timeous filing of the notice of appeal, appeal record, and power of attorney should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the explanations provided by the appellant for the delays are sufficient to justify condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal should be struck off the roll due to procedural non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's non-compliance with the rules regarding the timeous filing of the notice of appeal, appeal record, and power of attorney was flagrant and gross. The explanations provided by the appellant were vague, irrelevant, and unconvincing, and did not justify the delays. The appellant failed to prioritize compliance with appellate procedures and did not act promptly upon being alerted to the non-compliance. The Court held that, irrespective of the merits of the appeal, the applications for condonation should be refused. Consequently, the appeal was struck off the roll with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Applications for condonation dismissed; appeal struck off the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The applications for condonation are dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.
  • The appeal is struck off the roll with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.