Save the Maize Belt Society v MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs and others

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Mashile J
• Judgment Date: 25 May 2023
• Docket Number: 4340/2021
• Hearing Date: 25 May 2023
• Court: Mpumalanga Division, Mbombela

Mashile J:

[1]

On 10 March 2023, this Court granted relief to the Applicant in the following terms:

"1.

It is declared that ZO Attorneys and Mahlangu have failed to satisfy the Court that they are properly authorised to act on behalf of the Society, in accordance with Rule 7(1);

2.

ZO Attorneys and Mahlangu are prohibited from acting in the main application until they satisfy the Court, in accordance with Rule 7(1), that they are properly authorised to act on behalf of the Society;

3.

ZO Attorneys and Mahlangu are directed to furnish proof of their authority within 10 days of date hereof, failing which the Application will be dismissed;

4.

The Society is liable to Dialstat for the costs of this application."

[2]

The Applicant now appeals against the judgment and order of this Court. The order is the product of an interlocutory application. The first question that arises, and one that both parties have addressed concerns appealability of the order. Accordingly, while there may be grounds on which the order is challenged, I deem it prudent to focus attention on

2023 JDR 1756 p3

Mashile J

appealability as it can be dispositive of the whole matter depending on the outcome of course.

[3]

An order will be susceptible to appeal if it bears the following three attributes:

3.1

The decision must be final in effect and not susceptible of alteration by the Court of first instance;

3.2

It must be definitive of the rights of the parties; and

3.3

It must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings.

See, Zweni v Minister of Law and Order [1] .

[4]

In the matter of DRD GOLD Limited and Another v Nkala and Others [2] , it was held that an appealable order would be one that exhibits all the three requirements as described in the Zweni decision referred to above. Conversely, an order that does not bear all the three attributes mentioned in Zweni, would generally not be an appealable decision. That said, if the effect of the order is definitive and final on the proceedings or if it is in the interests of justice, it will be regarded as appealable.

[5]

The Applicant has contended that the order of the Court a quo contains all the three attributes of the Zweni decision, consequently it is appealable. In justification of its approach, it pointed out that the Court could not have granted the first order that reads:

"It is declared that ZO Attorneys and...