Veneta Mineraria Spa v Carolina Collieries (Pty) Ltd. (262/86) [1987] ZASCA 87; [1987] 2 All SA 447 (A) (17 September 1987)

Veneta Mineraria Spa v Carolina Collieries (Pty) Ltd. (262/86) [1987] ZASCA 87; [1987] 2 All SA 447 (A) (17 September 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that written consent to jurisdiction by a peregrine defendant is not sufficient, on its own, to confer jurisdiction on a South African court. Jurisdiction requires both a traditional ground—such as domicile, place of contract, or location of subject-matter—and effectiveness, meaning the court must be able to give effect to its judgment. The doctrine of prorogation or submission only allows a defendant to subject his person to the court's jurisdiction, but does not create jurisdiction where none exists in law. Statutory changes have removed certain procedural impediments but have not expanded the substantive jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore, in the...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 87
Parties
Appellant: Veneta Mineraria Spa; Respondent: Carolina Collieries (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 1987
Case Number
262/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Durban and Coast Local Division; Leave to Appeal Granted; Respondent in Liquidation; No Appearance for Respondent
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Viljoen, Smalberger, Vivier, Boshoff, Steyn
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Courts, Prorogation of Jurisdiction, Effectiveness Doctrine, Attachment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Courts Prorogation of Jurisdiction Effectiveness Doctrine Attachment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Veneta Mineraria Spa

Appellant

Carolina Collieries (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Durban and Coast Local Division; Leave to Appeal Granted; Respondent in Liquidation; No Appearance for Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether written consent to jurisdiction by a peregrine defendant is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a South African court.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter between two peregrini.
  3. 3 Whether consent alone, absent a traditional ground of jurisdiction, is effective to confer jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that written consent to jurisdiction by a peregrine defendant is not sufficient, on its own, to confer jurisdiction on a South African court. Jurisdiction requires both a traditional ground—such as domicile, place of contract, or location of subject-matter—and effectiveness, meaning the court must be able to give effect to its judgment. The doctrine of prorogation or submission only allows a defendant to subject his person to the court's jurisdiction, but does not create jurisdiction where none exists in law. Statutory changes have removed certain procedural impediments but have not expanded the substantive jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore, in the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of appeal.