Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Citation | 2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA) |
Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others
2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA)
2002 (5) SA p365
Citation |
2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA) |
Case No |
151/2001 |
Court |
Supreme Court of Appeal |
Judge |
Smalberger Adp, Marais JA, Streicher JA, Cameron JA and Lewis AJA |
Heard |
May 20, 2002 |
Judgment |
May 31, 2002 |
Counsel |
D A Gordon SC (with S Joubert) for the appellant. |
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B
Appeal — In what cases — Order dismissing exception to special plea of prescription — Except in cases of exception to jurisdiction of Court, dismissed exception not appealable.
Headnote : Kopnota
The appellant had sued the respondents in the Court a quo for payment of certain levies imposed in terms of a subsequently repealed Act and schemes provided for in terms of that C Act. The respondents filed a special plea of prescription to which the appellant excepted on the ground that the levies imposed constituted a tax, with the result that the prescriptive period in terms of s 11 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 was 30 years and not three years as alleged by the respondents. The Court a quo held that the levies did not constitute a tax and dismissed D the exception. An application for condonation of the late filing of an application for leave to appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Court a quo on the ground that the dismissal of the exception was not appealable. The appellant appealed against the dismissal of the application for condonation.
The appellant submitted that the present case was one which was in form E presented as an exception but in substance was a stated case. This was the case, it was argued, as the issue to be decided was a point of law and no relevant evidence could be led in respect thereof. The respondents, however, had not agreed that the matter be dealt with as if it was a stated case. The respondents contended in the Court a quo and on appeal that evidence was required to decide whether the levies in question constituted a tax or not and stated that F they intended adducing such evidence at the trial of the matter.
Held, that s 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 had provided for an appeal, in certain civil cases, against the 'judgment or order' of the Court of a Provincial or Local Division. Section 20(2) provided that no interlocutory order would be subject to appeal save with the leave of the Court by which the judgment was given or the G order made, and that this provision would apply in connection with appeals under s 20(1). After s 20 was amended by the Appeals Amendment Act 105 of 1982, it still provided for an appeal against a 'judgment or order' of a Provincial or Local Division in civil proceedings subject, however, to obtaining the leave of the Court against whose judgment or order the appeal was or, depending on the H circumstances, the leave of the Appellate Division. The section no longer contained any reference to interlocutory orders.(Paragraphs [2] and [3] at 369E/F - H/I.)
Held, further, that, generally speaking, a non-appealable decision was one which was not final, because the Court of first instance was entitled to alter it, nor definitive of the rights of the parties nor had the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. This principle I was not, however, exhaustive nor cast in stone. (Paragraphs [4] and [7] at 369H/I - I/J and 371A/B.)
Held, further, that the mere fact that the issue to be decided in an exception was purely a matter of law did not convert an exception into a stated case. When it had to be decided whether a declaration or particulars of claim disclosed J
2002 (5) SA p366
a cause of action or whether a plea disclosed a defence, the issue often was whether in law A that was the case. A decision on that point of law was not final. The point could be re-argued at the trial in the event of the exception being dismissed. The position would have been different if the Court a quo had, at the request of the parties or of its own accord, made an order in terms of Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court directing that the issue raised by the exception be finally disposed of. (Paragraph [12] at 373B - D.) B
Held, further, that it had to be accepted that a dismissal of an exception, save an exception to the jurisdiction of the Court, presented and argued as nothing other than an exception, did not finally dispose of the issue raised by the exception and was not appealable. The Court a quo had accordingly correctly dismissed the application for condonation. (Paragraphs [14] and [15] at 373I - I/J and 374B/C.) C
The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others confirmed.
Cases Considered
Annotations
Reported cases
Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Others v Esselen's Estate 1994 (2) SA 1 (A): referred to D
Blaauwbosch Diamonds Ltd v Union Government (Minister of Finance) 1915 AD 599: dictum at 601 applied
Caroluskraal Farms (Edms) Bpk v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suider-Afrika Bpk; Red Head Boer Goat (Edms) Bpk v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suider-Afrika Bpk; Sleutelfontein (Edms) Bpk v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suider-Afrika Bpk 1994 (3) SA 407 (A): referred to E
Cronshaw and Another v Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd 1996 (3) SA 686 (A): dictum at 690E - G applied
Du Toit v Ackerman 1962 (2) SA 581 (A): dictum at 587D - E applied
Guardian National Insurance Co Ltd v Searle NO 1999 (3) SA 296 (SCA): referred to F
Jones v Krok 1995 (1) SA 677 (A): referred to
Kett v Afro Adventures (Pty) Ltd and Another 1997 (1) SA 62 (A): dictum at 65H applied
Knox D'Arcy Ltd and Others v Jamieson and Others 1996 (4) SA 348 (A): referred to G
Makhothi v Minister of Police 1981 (1) SA 69 (A): distinguished
Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Hamilton 2001 (3) SA 50 (SCA): considered
Moch v Nedtravel (Pty) Ltd t/a American Express Travel Service 1996 (3) SA 1 (A): dicta at 10D and F applied
Shepstone & Wylie and Others v Geyser NO 1998 (3) SA 1036 (SCA): referred to H
South African Chemical Workers' Union and Another v African Commerce Developing Co (Pty) Ltd t/a Buffalo Tapes 2000 (3) SA 732 (SCA): referred to
Steytler NO v Fitzgerald 1911 AD 295: discussed
Trakman NO v Livshitz and Others 1995 (1) SA 282 (A): referred to
Trope and Others v South African Reserve Bank 1993 (3) SA 264 (A): dictum at 269F applied I
Wellington Court Shareblock v Johannesburg City Council; Agar Properties (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (3) SA 827 (A): dictum at 835D applied
Zweni v Minister of Law and Order 1993 (1) SA 523 (A): dictum at 536B - D applied. J
2002 (5) SA p367
Statutes Considered
Statutes
The Appeals Amendment Act 105 of 1982: see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 2001 vol 1 at 1-107 A
The Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, s 20: see The Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 and the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 Juta (2001) Part A at 8-9.
Rules Considered
Rules of Court B
The Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 33(4): see The Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 and the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 Juta (2001) Part A at 48.
Case Information
Appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division (Spoel- stra J). The facts appear from the judgment of Streicher JA.
D A Gordon SC (with S Joubert) for the appellant. C
A Subel SC (with M T Glaeser) for the respondents.
In addition to the authorities referred to in the judgment of the Court, counsel for the parties referred to the following:
Agar Properties (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (3) SA 827 (A) D
Alberts v Roodepoort-Maraisburg Municipality 1921 TPD 133 at 136
Alpha Bank Bpk v Registrateur van Banke en Andere 1996 (1) SA 330 (A) at 339C - D
Amalgamated Footwear and Leather Industries v Jordan and Co Ltd 1948 (2) SA 891 (C) E
Auby and Pastellides (Pty) Ltd v Glen Anil Investments (Pty) Ltd 1960 (4) SA 865 (A) at 869H - 870A
Beinash v Wixley 1997 (3) SA 721 (SCA) at 730C
Beira v Raphaely-Weiner and Others 1997 (4) SA 332 (SCA) at 337D - E
Bernstein v Bester and Others NNO 1996 (2) SA 621 (CC) at paras [59], [60] F
Birch v Klein-Karoo Agricultural Co-operative Ltd 1993 (3) SA 403 (A) at 411E - H
Cairns' Executors v Gaarn 1912 AD 181 at 186
Callender-Easby v Grahamstown Municipality 1981 (2) SA 810 (C)
Carlson Investments Share Block v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service 2001 (3) SA 210 (W) at 231A - C G
City Treasurer and Rates Collector, Newcastle Town Council v Shaikjee and Others 1983 (1) SA 506 (N) at 507D - F
Constantia Insurance Co Ltd v Nohamba 1986 (3) SA 27 (A) at 42H
Cowbell AG v ICS Holdings Ltd 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA) at 946E - F H
Darries v Sheriff, Magistrate's Court, Wynberg and Another 1998 (3) SA 34 (SCA) at 40I
Dharumpal Transport (Pty) Ltd v Dharumpal 1956 (1) SA 700 (A)
Dickinson and Another v Fisher's Executors 1914 AD 424 at 427
Elida Gibbs (Pty) Ltd v Colgate Palmolive (Pty) Ltd (2) 1988 (2) SA 360 (W) at 364F - G I
Federated Employers Fire & General Insurance Co Ltd and Another v McKenzie 1969 (3) SA 360 (A) at 362F - H
Fedsure v Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) at paras [44], [45], [56] - [58]
Ferreira v Ntshingila 1990 (4) SA 271 (A) at 281C - 282A J
2002 (5) SA p368
Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A) A
Hudson v Hudson 1927 AD 259 at 269
Kethel v Kethel's Estate 1949 (3) SA 598 (A) at 605
Kotsopoulos v Bilardi 1970 (2) SA 391 (C)
Kruger v Heiman & Sacks Ltd and Another 1963 (3) SA 372 (T) at 374H - 375A B
Labuschagne v Labuschagne; Labuschagne v Minister van Justisie 1967 (2) SA 575 (A)
Leake v Commissioner of Taxation (State) (1934) 36 WALR 66 at 67
Lewis v Oneanate (Pty) Ltd and Another 1992 (4) SA 811 (A)
Liquidators, Myburgh, Krone & Co v...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Itzikowitz v Absa Bank Ltd
...v Nisbet and Others 2002 (5) SA 766 (W) ([2002] 3 All SA 294):criticised and not followedMaize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA) ([2002]3 All SA 593): dictum in para [14] appliedMcCrae v Absa Bank Ltd (SGHC case No 42229/2008): criticised and notfollowedMcLelland v Hul......
-
Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (Avusa Media Ltd and Others as Amici Curiae)
...Justice Centre as Amici Curiae) 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC): dictum in para [195] followed Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA) ([2002] 3 All SA 593): referred to H Matthews and Others v Young 1922 AD 492: Mineworkers Investment Co (Pty) Ltd v Modibane 2002 (6) SA 512 (W):......
-
Robbetze en 'n Ander v Garden Route Resort Services Bk
...v Labuschagne; Labuschagne v Minister van Justisie 1967 (2) SA 575 (A): onderskei/distinguished Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (HHA): onderskei/distinguished C Moch v Nedtravel (Pty) Ltd t/a American Express Travel Service 1996 (3) SA 1 (A): Napier NO v Spearhead Ri......
-
Ndamase v Functions 4 All
...Town Management Board v Mynfred Poultry Farm (Pvt) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 737 (SR): compared Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA): dictum in paras [9] and [14] applied Mason Motors (Edms) Bpk v Van Niekerk 1983 (4) SA 406 (T): dictum at 409E - F applied J 2004 (5) SA p603 ......
-
Itzikowitz v Absa Bank Ltd
...v Nisbet and Others 2002 (5) SA 766 (W) ([2002] 3 All SA 294):criticised and not followedMaize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA) ([2002]3 All SA 593): dictum in para [14] appliedMcCrae v Absa Bank Ltd (SGHC case No 42229/2008): criticised and notfollowedMcLelland v Hul......
-
Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (Avusa Media Ltd and Others as Amici Curiae)
...Justice Centre as Amici Curiae) 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC): dictum in para [195] followed Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA) ([2002] 3 All SA 593): referred to H Matthews and Others v Young 1922 AD 492: Mineworkers Investment Co (Pty) Ltd v Modibane 2002 (6) SA 512 (W):......
-
Robbetze en 'n Ander v Garden Route Resort Services Bk
...v Labuschagne; Labuschagne v Minister van Justisie 1967 (2) SA 575 (A): onderskei/distinguished Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (HHA): onderskei/distinguished C Moch v Nedtravel (Pty) Ltd t/a American Express Travel Service 1996 (3) SA 1 (A): Napier NO v Spearhead Ri......
-
Ndamase v Functions 4 All
...Town Management Board v Mynfred Poultry Farm (Pvt) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 737 (SR): compared Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Others 2002 (5) SA 365 (SCA): dictum in paras [9] and [14] applied Mason Motors (Edms) Bpk v Van Niekerk 1983 (4) SA 406 (T): dictum at 409E - F applied J 2004 (5) SA p603 ......