Ndamase v Functions 4 All

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Ndamase v Functions 4 All
2004 (5) SA 602 (SCA)

2004 (5) SA p602

Citation	2004 (5) SA 602 (SCA)
Case No	100/2003
Court	Supreme Court of Appeal
Judge	Mpati DP, Scott JA, Mthiyane JA, Heher JA and Southwood AJA
Heard	March 17, 2004
Judgment	March 31, 2004
Counsel	D G Tobias for the appellant.; S Khan for the respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Provisional sentence — Magistrates' courts — Jurisdiction of magistrate's court in respect of claims for provisional sentence in terms of Magistrates' Courts Rule 14A — Rule 14A not ultra vires Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 — Claims for provisional sentence permissible in magistrates' courts. C

Headnote : Kopnota

Although the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 makes no express provision for the granting of provisional sentence by a magistrate's court, there is no reason why the words 'actions on or arising out of a liquid document' in s 29(1)(d) of the Act should not be understood to include the interlocutory procedure of provisional sentence. (Paragraph [11] at 608C - D.) The fact that s 48 does not D include interlocutory judgments for provisional sentence among the judgments a magistrate's court may grant is irrelevant since s 48 applies only to judgments which a magistrate's court may grant 'as a result of the trial of an action', which does not include provisional sentence proceedings. Furthermore, s 48 is clearly not the source of a magistrate's court's power to grant interlocutory relief. In any event, the power to grant the interlocutory relief of provisional sentence is by implication conferred when magistrates' courts are E given jurisdiction to entertain actions 'on or arising out of a liquid document'. (Paragraph [12] at 608E - G.) A magistrate's court therefore has jurisdiction in respect of claims for provisional sentence and all the ancillary powers necessary to give effect to that jurisdiction, and accordingly Rule 14A of the Magistrates' Courts Rules is not ultra vires the Magistrates' Courts Act. (Paragraph [14] at 609B - C.) F

Cases Considered

Annotations

Reported cases

Avtjoglou v First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd 2004 (2) SA 453 (SCA): applied

C G E Rhoode Construction Co (Pty) Ltd v Provincial Administration, Cape, and Another 1976 (4) SA 925 (C): G dictum at 928A - D applied

Colonial Treasurer v Smit 1907 TS 747: dictum at 750 - 1 applied

Dickinson v South African General Electric Co (Pty) Ltd 1973 (2) SA 620 (A): referred to

Du Toit v Ackerman 1962 (2) SA 581 (A): dictum at 587D - E applied

Ewing McDonald & Co Ltd v M & M Products Co 1991 (1) SA 252 (A): dictum at 256G - H applied H

Gqalana and Others v Knoesen and Another 1980 (4) SA 119 (E): applied

Graaff-Reinet Municipality v Van Ryneveld's Pass Irrigation Board 1950 (2) SA 420 (A): dictum at 424 applied

Harrowsmith v Ceres Flats (Pty) Ltd 1979 (2) SA 722 (T): dictum at 743F - H applied I

Hatfield 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

Pretoria Garrison Institutes v Danish Variety Products (Pty) Ltd 1948 (1) SA 839 (A): compared A

Reuters v Clarke 1922 EDL 303: compared

Rich and Others v Lagerwey 1974 (4) SA 748 (A): dictum at 754G - H applied

Riversdale Divisional Council v Pienaar (1885) 3 SC 252: dictum at 256 applied B

Scott-King (Pty) Ltd v Cohen 1999 (1) SA 806 (W): dictum at 825C - G applied

Sonfred (Pty) Ltd v Papert 1962 (2) SA 140 (W): dictum at 142E - 143E applied

Spendiff NO v Kolektor (Pty) Ltd 1992 (2) SA 537 (A): dictum at 551C applied C

Steytler NO v Fitzgerald 1911 AD 295: dicta at 305, 313 and 327 applied

Stork v Stork (1903) 20 SC 138: dictum at 139 applied

Union Share Agency & Investment Ltd v Spain 1928 AD 74: dictum at 78 - 80 applied

Van der Merwe v De Villiers and Another 1953 (4) SA 670 (T): compared

Venter v Standard Bank of South Africa [1999] 3 All SA 278 (W): dictum at 290i - j applied D

Wollach v Barclays National Bank Ltd 1983 (2) SA 543 (A): dictum at 552A - D applied.

Statutes Considered

Statutes

The Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944, ss 29(1)(d) and 48: see The Supreme Court Act and the E Magistrates' Courts Act and Rules (Juta, 2004) at 248 and 252.

Rules Considered

Rules of Court

The Magistrates' Courts Rules, Rule 14A: see The Supreme Court Act and the Magistrates' Courts Act and Rules (Juta, 2004) at 304. F

Case Information

Appeal against a decision in the Natal Provincial Division (P C Combrinck J and Nyanda J). The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

D G Tobias for the appellant. G

S Khan for the respondent.

In addition to the authorities cited in the judgment of the Court, counsel for the parties referred to the following:

Abromovitz v Jacquet and Another (3) 1950 (3) SA 378 (W) at 379D

Barclays National Bank Ltd v Serfontein 1981 (3) SA 244 (W) at 249 H

Champion v Said et Uxor 1958 (1) SA 360 (D) at 362A - B

De Winter v Ajmeri Properties and Investments 1957 (2) SA 297 (D) at 299E - F

Eilon v Eilon 1965 (1) SA 703 (A) at 725F

Estate Agents Board v Lek 1979 (3) SA 1048 (A) at 1063G I

Fraser & Chalmers SA (Pty) Ltd v Tuckers Land Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 465 (W)

Gqalana v Knoesen 1980 (4) SA 119 (E) at 120

Joseph's Cash Store v Mpele & Sons 1972 (1) SA 337 (T)

Knox D'Arcy Ltd and Others v Jamieson and Others 1994 (3) SA 700 (W) at 705B - E J

2004 (5) SA p604

Kopke v Ship and Tank Services (Pty) Ltd 1972 (4) SA 339 (C) A

Machanick & Co v Kotze 1947 (4) SA 314 (C)

The Mareva: Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213 (CA)

Moch v Nedtravel (Pty) Ltd t/a American Express Travel Service 1996 (3) SA 1 (A) at 10D B

Neimed Medical Aid Society v Seipp and Others 1989 (2) SA 166 (D)

Northend v Ulbrick 1972 (1) SA 737 (D)

Oliff v Minnie 1952 (4) SA 369 (A) at 374F - G

Palmer v Goldberg 1961 (4) SA 781 (N) at 786C - D

Pepler v Hirschberg 1920 CPD 438

Purdy v Hewat 1924 CPD 286 C

South Cape Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Engineering Management Services (Pty) Ltd 1977 (3) SA 534 (A)

Tenant v Lamb 1947 (2) SA 659 (W)

Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T)

Grotius The Jurisprudence of Holland (translated by Lee) vol 2 at 266 - 9 D

Harms Civil Procedure in the Magistrates' Courts - Commentary at 23.1

Harms Civil Procedure in the Supreme Court - Commentary at B8.1

Herbstein and Van Winsen The Civil Practice of the Superior Courts in South Africa 2nd ed at 485

Jones and Buckle The Civil Practice of the Magistrates' Courts in South Africa 9th ed vol 1 at 34, 403 E

Joubert (ed) Law of South Africa vol 3(1) (first reissue) para 214

Malan et al Provisional Sentence at 759

Pothier Coutumes d'Orleans (Dupin Edition, 1824) at title 20, article 430(ccccxxx), fn (6) and (8)

Salmond Jurisprudence 11th ed at 504 F

Van der Linden Institutes of Holland (translated by J Henry) (1828) at 407 - 9, s 12

Van Leeuwen Commentaries on the Roman-Dutch Law (translated by J G Kotze J) at chap 19 para 466.

Cur adv vult. G

Postea (March 31).

Judgment

Southwood AJA: H

[1] The issue in this appeal is whether Rule 14A of the Magistrates' Courts Rules of Court is ultra vires the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 ('the Act') and accordingly whether magistrates' courts have no jurisdiction in respect of claims for provisional sentence. I

[2] The respondent (the plaintiff in the court of first instance) instituted an action against the appellant (the defendant in the court...