Robbetze en 'n Ander v Garden Route Resort Services Bk

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Robbetze en 'n Ander v Garden Route Resort Services BK
2004 (4) SA 406 (C)

2004 (4) SA p406

Citation	2004 (4) SA 406 (C)
Case No	A785/2001
Court	Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling
Judge	Thring R en Meer R
Heard	August 22, 2003
Judgment	August 22, 2003
Counsel	M W Verster namens die appellante.; D L van der Merwe namens die respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde H

Appèl — In welke sake — Teen beslissing op spesiale verweer wat afsonderlik verhoor is — Landdroshof aksie — Spesiale pleit rakende jurisdiksie — Spesiale pleit afgewys — Voor voortsetting van hoofverhoor, is beslissing teen spesiale pleit op appèl geneem — Dat besondere hof nie jurisdiksie het nie is nie verweer wat eiser se eis finaal tot niet I maak nie — Sodanige beslissing van landdros dus nie vatbaar vir appèl nie.

Appèl — In welke sake — Landdroshof aksie — Landdroshofwet 32 van 1944, art 83 — Spesiale pleit afgewys — Of appelleerbaar — Vir landdros se J

2004 (4) SA p407

beslissing om appelleerbaar te wees, moet dit afhandel met wesenlike gedeelte van A regshulp aangevra deur enige party — In casu is landdros se beslissing een van prosedure en geskil nie finaal daardeur opgelos nie — Appèl nie behoorlik voor Hof nie — Geen bevel.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die twee verweerders in 'n siviele geding in die landdroshof het 'n spesiale pleit geopper dat die betrokke landdroshof 'nie oor die nodige jurisdiksie beskik [het] om die aksie teen hulle te bereg B nie'. Na getuienis gelei is, het die landdros die spesiale pleit van die hand gewys. Die partye het nie met die hoofverhoor voortgegaan in die landdroshof nie. In plaas daarvan het die verweerders teen die landdros se beslissing appelleer na 'n Provinsiale Afdeling. C

Beslis, dat die reg van 'n party by 'n siviele geding om na die Hooggeregshof te appelleer ontstaan het uit die bepalings van art 83 van die Wet op Landdroshowe 32 van 1944. In casu was die vraag of die afwys van die spesiale pleit binne die betekenis geval het van 'n 'beskikking of bevel . . . wat die uitwerking van 'n finale vonnis het . . .'. (Op 410G/H en 410J - 411A.) D

Beslis, verder, dat die posisie analoog was aan die situasie waar, in 'n deliktuele eis om skadevergoeding, die geskilpunt van die verweerder se aanspreeklikheid aan die eiser ingevolge Landdroshofreël 29(4) eerste afgehandel word, afsonderlik van die vraag van kwantum. (Op 411F - G.)

Beslis, verder, dat die onlangse uitspraak van die Hoogste Hof van Appèl in Steenkamp v South African Broadcasting Corporation 2002 (1) SA 625 'n einde gebring het aan die verskeie uiteenlopende beslissings van die Provinsiale Afdelings van die E Hooggeregshof rakende die appelleerbaarheid van so 'n bevinding. (Op 411G - H/I.)

Beslis, verder, dat in casu was die regshulp wat die eiser in die aksie gevra het die betaling van 'n som geld, met rente daarop, gedingskoste en alternatiewe regshulp. Die verweerders het gevra dat die eiser se eise van die hand gewys word met koste. In terme van die beginsels wat deur die Hoogste Hof van Appèl F neergelê is, moes die bevinding van die landdros, om vir appèl vatbaar te wees, die effek gehad het om ten minste 'n wesenlike gedeelte van die regshulp wat deur enigeen van die partye aangevra is, af te handel of uit die weg te ruim. Dit was egter nie die uitwerking van die bevinding nie. (Op 412E - F/G.) G

Beslis, verder, dat die landdros se bevinding niks meer was as 'n reëling van 'n bloot prosesregtelike aard nie. Die werklike geskille van die partye oor die meriete van die eiser se eis is nie daardeur geraak nie. (Op 412H.)

Beslis, verder, dat die feit dat 'n besondere hof nie jurisdiksie gehad het nie, nie 'n verweer was wat die eiser se eise teen die verweerder finaal en onherroeplik kon ontsenu of tot niet maak nie, want dit het die eiser nog altyd vrygestaan om in 'n ander hof wat wel jurisdiksie gehad het, sy eise af te dwing. Die verweer was dus H slegs van beperkte toepassing en uitwerking. (Op 413F - G.)

Beslis, gevolglik, dat die beslissing van die landdros in hierdie geval nie vir appèl vatbaar was nie. (Op 413G.) Dit het gevolg dat die appèl nie behoorlik op die rol was nie en dit inderwaarheid 'n putatiewe appèl was. Geen bevel gemaak ten opsigte van die verrigtinge nie. (Op 414B/C en D - D/E.) I

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Appeal — In what cases — Against decision on special defence adjudicated separately — Action for payment of moneys in magistrate's court — Special plea regarding jurisdiction — Magistrate dismissing special plea — Decision on special plea taken J

2004 (4) SA p408

on appeal before proceeding with main trial — Particular court not having A jurisdiction is not defence extinguishing plaintiff's claim — Such decision of magistrate not appealable.

Appeal — Jurisdiction — Magistrate's court action — Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944, s 83 — Dismissal of special plea — Whether appealable — To be appealable, magistrate's finding should dispose of meaningful portion of relief sought by party — In casu magistrate's finding one of procedure and dispute not finally resolved thereby — Appeal not properly before Court — No order. B

Headnote : Kopnota

The two defendants in a civil trial in a magistrate's court raised a special plea that the particular magistrate's court 'did not have the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter against them'. After evidence was led, the magistrate dismissed the special plea. The parties did not proceed with the main trial, but instead the C defendants lodged an appeal against the decision of the magistrate in a Provincial Division.

Held, that the right of a party to civil proceedings to appeal to the High Court had its origin in the provisions of s 83 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944. In casu the question was whether the dismissal of the special plea fell within the D meaning of 'any rule or order . . . having the effect of a final judgment . . .'. (At 410G/H and 410J - 411A.)

Held, further, that the position was analogous to the situation where, in a delictual claim for damages, the issue of the defendant's liability towards the plaintiff was dealt with separately and prior to the issue of quantum in terms of Magistrates' Courts Rule 29(4). (At 411F - G.) E

Held, further, that the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Steenkamp v South African Broadcasting Corporation 2002 (1) SA 625 brought an end to the various divergent decisions of the Provincial Divisions of the High Court regarding the appealability of such a decision. (At 411G - H/I.)

Held, further, that in casu the plaintiff had instituted action for the payment of moneys, with interest, costs F and alternative relief. The defendants had prayed that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed with costs. In terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Appeal, the decision of the magistrate, to be appealable, had to have the effect of at least finalising a material part of the relief claimed by either one of the parties. That, however, was not the effect of the ruling. (At 412E - F/G.) G

Held, further, that the magistrate's decision was nothing more than a ruling of a mere procedural nature. The real issues between the parties relating to the merits of the plaintiff's claim were not influenced by it. (At 412H.)

Held, further, that the fact that a particular court did not have jurisdiction, was not a defence that would finally and irrevocably extinguish or invalidate the plaintiff's claims against the defendant, as the plaintiff could still claim in another court H having jurisdiction. It was therefore a defence of limited applicability and effect only. (At 413F - G.)

Held, accordingly, that the decision of the magistrate in this instance was not appealable. (At 413G.) The appeal was thus not properly on the roll and was in reality only a putative appeal. No order made in respect of the proceedings. (At 414B/C and D - D/E.) I

Cases Considered

Annotations

Gerapporteerde sake/Reported cases

Caroluskraal Farms (Edms) Bpk v Eerste...