Van Der Merwe v Bonaero Park (Edms) Bpk (106/98) [2000] ZASCA 180 (31 May 2000)

Van Der Merwe v Bonaero Park (Edms) Bpk (106/98) [2000] ZASCA 180 (31 May 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's refusal to provide security de restitutendo upon request was contrary to Rule 8(9) and 8(10), as payment and provision of security must occur simultaneously. The appellant's notice was sufficient to trigger the obligation to provide security, and the respondent's failure constituted a default under Rule 8(10), entitling the appellant to proceed to the principal case. The court further found that the late filing of the notice to proceed could be condoned under Rule 27, as good reasons for condonation were present in the record. The previous court's refusal to condone was incorrect, and the appeal succeeded with costs.

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 180
Parties
Appellant: Pieter Gideon van der Merwe; Respondent: Bonaero Park (Edms) Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2000
Case Number
106/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Condonation for Late Filing of Notice to Proceed to Principal Case After Provisional Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order granting the appellant's application for condonation with costs.
Judges
Grosskopf, Schutz, ARR, Mthiyane
Legal Topics
Provisional Sentence, Security De Restituendo, Rule 8 Application, Condonation, Late Filing, Final Judgment Effect
Civil Procedure Provisional Sentence Security De Restituendo Rule 8 Application Condonation Late Filing Final Judgment Effect

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

Parties

Pieter Gideon van der Merwe

Appellant

Bonaero Park (Edms) Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Condonation for Late Filing of Notice to Proceed to Principal Case After Provisional Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was obliged to provide security de restitutendo upon request before payment by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's request for security was sufficient to trigger the obligation under Rule 8(9).
  3. 3 Whether the late filing of the notice to proceed to the principal case could be condoned under Rule 27.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's refusal to provide security de restitutendo upon request was contrary to Rule 8(9) and 8(10), as payment and provision of security must occur simultaneously. The appellant's notice was sufficient to trigger the obligation to provide security, and the respondent's failure constituted a default under Rule 8(10), entitling the appellant to proceed to the principal case. The court further found that the late filing of the notice to proceed could be condoned under Rule 27, as good reasons for condonation were present in the record. The previous court's refusal to condone was incorrect, and the appeal succeeded with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order granting the appellant's application for condonation with costs.

Orders

  • The appellant's application for condonation is granted with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced accordingly.