Thompson v Stofberg

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1934 AD 527

Thompson Applicant v Stofberg Respondent
1934 AD 527

1934 AD p527

Citation	1934 AD 527
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Wessels CJ, Curlewis JA, Beyers JA and De Villiers JA
Heard	September 11, 1934
Judgment	September 11, 1934

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Appeal — Appellate Division — Pauper appeal — Respondent also a pauper — Refusal of leave — Security — Application to dispense with.

Headnote : Kopnota

The Appellate Division will not grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis from a decision of a trial Court refusing to award damages to the applicant where the respondent is also a pauper, nor will leave to dispense with security for the costs of appeal be granted in such a case.

Case Information

Application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from a decision of the Orange Free State Provincial Division (KRAUSE, J.P., and BOTHA, J.).

The facts appear from the judgment of WESSELS, C.J.

N. J. Grobler, for the applicant.

Judgment

Wessels, C.J.:

This is an application on the part of Mrs. Thompson to proceed on appeal in this Court against Miss Hestor Stofberg in forma pauperis. It appears that in the court below Mrs. Thompson sued Miss Stofberg for damages for having seduced her husband from her. Judgment was given against her on file ground that the action did not lie. She now wishes to appeal to this Court to have that judgment set aside and to have the ruling of this Court by reason of the fact that there is a conflict between the Orange Free State Provincial Division and the Cape Provincial Division. In the Orange Free State case the CHIEF JUSTICE - Sir ANDRIES MAASDORP - dissented from the majority of the Court. Before we consider this law point, we have to decide whether we ought to allow a pauper to appeal against a decision refusing her damages in a case against another pauper. This is at present the real question at issue. It would be simply a waste of this Court's time because if we upheld the appeal our judgment would be in effect to order one pauper to pay damages to another pauper. We do not lay down academic legal propositions, but would decide in this case how much one party has to pay another where both parties possess nothing. To grant leave to appeal in the present case would make the whole process of the Court ridiculous,

CURLEWIS, J.A., in concurring, referred to Shearer v Estate Shearer and Others (1911 AD 675).

BEYERS, J.A., and DE VILLIERS, J.A...