Uitenhage Transitional Local Council v South African Revenue Service

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Zulman JA, Nugent JA and Heher JA
• Judgment Date: 05 September 2003
• Citation: 2004 (1) SA 292 (SCA)
• Docket Number: 11/2003
• Hearing Date: 21 August 2003
• Counsel: R P van Rooyen SC (with him O H Ronaasen) for the appellant. H J van der Linde SC (with him S C Rorke) for the respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeal

Heher JA:

[1] The appellant was granted leave to appeal to this Court by Ludorf J sitting in the South Eastern Cape Local Division. The learned D Judge had dismissed a claim by the appellant for payment of R2 863 097,70 and ancillary relief arising out of a written contract concluded between the parties on 15 May 1996.

[2] In terms of Rule 8(1)(c) of the Rules of this Court the appellant was required to lodge the record of proceedings in E the Court a quo with the Registrar by 19 January 2002. At the instance of the appellant the respondent granted various extensions in terms of Rule 8(2)(a) for that purpose, the last of which expired on 14 October 2002. Thereafter the appellant made a direct approach to the Registrar for a further extension. On 17 October the Registrar addressed a letter to the appellant's F Bloemfontein attorneys extending the time until 14 November 2002. The record was not lodged timeously. The appeal lapsed and an application was required to revive it: Court v Standard Bank of SA Ltd; Court v Bester NO and Others 1995 (3) SA 123 (A) at 139F - H. G

[3] On 16 January 2003 the record was lodged. An application for condonation and reinstatement was filed on the same day. The respondent gave notice of its intention to oppose on 9 June but did not file an answering affidavit until 29 July when it too applied for condonation for its failure to comply with Rule 12(2). The appellant thereupon filed a replying affidavit in which it also opposed the grant of that indulgence. H

[4] When the matter was called we heard counsel on the condonation applications. The appellant did not persist in its opposition. We indicated that we would reserve our judgment on the question of whether the appeal should be reinstated. I

[5] In his affidavit in support of condonation, attested on 19 December 2002, the appellant's attorney, Mr Le Roux, deposed as follows:

'4.

U applikant het reeds gedurende Desember 2001 pogings aangewend om skikkingsonderhandelinge aan te knoop met die respondent, aangesien beide partye Staatsinstansies is en die koste van die voorbereiding van die oorkonde vermy wou word. J

Heher JA

5.

Sneller Opnames, Port Elizabeth, het probleme ondervind om die oorkonde te tik en gevolglik het u applikant se regsverteenwoordigers A uitstel by die teenkant bekom ten einde die oorkonde te liasseer op 19 Februarie 2002.

6.

U applikant se pogings om die oorkonde tydig te finaliseer is intussen verder bemoeilik deur die feit dat die Hoflêer verlore geraak het. Gevolglik moes daar pogings aangewend word om die Hoflêer op te spoor wat onsuksesvol was. Die rekenaartoerusting van Sneller B Opnames is ook in die tussentyd gesteel en alle data daarmee saam. Gevolglik is daar 'n aantal uitstelle deur respondent verleen vir die finalisering van die oorkonde en die hersamestelling van die pleitstukke wat tydens die verhoor verskeie kere mondelings gewysig is.

7.

U applikant het weereens gedurende Julie 2002 pogings aangewend om die aangeleentheid te skik en voorbereiding van die C oorkonde is agterweë gehou om nie onnodige kostes aan te gaan nie. Verteenwoordigers van die partye het vergader en formele skikkingsvoorstelle is gemaak op aanvraag van die respondent.

8

Die skikkingsonderhandelinge was onsuksesvol en gedurende Oktober 2002 is daar ten volle voortgegaan met die finalisering van die oorkonde. Die Griffier van hierdie agbare Hof het 'n uitstel aan u applikant verleen om die oorkonde te liasseer teen 13 Desember D 2002.

9.

Die oorkonde, soos verder voorberei deur Sneller Opnames, Bloemfontein, het 14 volumes beslaan. Die respondent het aangedring dat die partye se onderskeie bundels gebruik tydens die Hof a quo verrigtinge beide deel sou vorm van die oorkonde. Daar was egter oorvleuelings in die bundels en oorbodige dokumente en daar is besluit om 'n kernbundel saam te stel om die oorkonde te verklein en E dit te laat voldoen aan die Reëls van hierdie agbare Hof.

10.

Die finalisering van die oorkonde is verder vertraag deur die rekonstruksie van die hoflêer aangesien daar wysigings gemaak is tydens die verrigtinge in die Hof a quo en die regsverteenwoordigers van die partye nie ooreenkoms kon bereik oor die samestelling van die pleitstukke nie. F

11.

Die besluit om 'n kernbundel saam te stel het daartoe bygedra dat die oorkonde langer geneem het om te finaliseer, maar in die proses is die oorkonde verklein na vier volumes met 'n kernbundel van vier volumes. Omdat daar nie rekenaar data van die oorkonde beskikbaar was nie, vanweë die diefstal, moes alle wysigings met die hand gedoen word. G

12.

U applikant plaas op rekord dat weens die onvermoë om die appèlrekord tydig te liasseer, die appèl intussen verval het.

13.

U applikant doen met eerbied aan die hand dat die versuim om die appèlrekord betyds te liasseer uitsluitlik veroorsaak is deur omstandighede buite U applikant se beheer, asook die onvermoë van die partye om die aangeleentheid te skik.' H

[6] One would have hoped that the many admonitions concerning what is required of an applicant in a condonation application would be trite knowledge among practitioners who are entrusted with the preparation of appeals to this Court: condonation is not to be had I merely for the asking; a full, detailed and accurate account of the causes of the delay and their effects must be furnished so as to enable the Court to understand clearly the reasons and to assess the responsibility. It must be obvious that, if the non-compliance is time-related then the date, duration and extent of any obstacle on which reliance is placed must be spelled out. J

Heher JA

[7] The appellant's affidavit consists of a number of generalised causes without any attempt to relate them to the time-frame A of its default or to enlighten the Court as to the materiality and effectiveness of any steps taken by the appellant's legal representatives to achieve compliance with the Rules at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

[8] The shortcomings in the application were aggravated by the undisputed content of the respondent's answering affidavit from B which it appeared that:

(i)

On 7 August 2002 the deponent to the appellant's affidavit had written to the respondent's attorneys requesting a final extension of two months from 12 August and undertaking to finalise the appeal record during that period should the negotiations then in prospect not result in a settlement. C

(ii)

As a result, the respondent agreed to the lodging of the record by not later than 14 October 2002 and the parties jointly notified the Registrar to that effect on 8 August; D

(iii)

despite their unequivocal undertaking, on 11 October the appellant's attorneys wrote to the respondent's attorneys requesting yet another extension of a month without offering an explanation for their failure to comply.

(iv)

On 14 October the respondent's attorneys asked their colleagues for an explanation as to 'why it has taken such an E inordinately long time to file the record'. Before a reply was forthcoming they received from the Registrar a copy of a notification to the appellant's Bloemfontein attorneys that an extension in terms of Rule 8(2)(b) until 14 November had been granted 'whereafter the appeal shall lapse'. F

(v)

On 21 October 2002 the appellant's attorney replied to the letter of 14 October, the final paragraph of their reply reading

'You will note from our letter requesting the extension to file the appeal record that we have experienced great difficulties in compiling the record as the Court file disappeared and the computers of Sneller were stolen. We therefore require your co-operation in order to remove or mark faults in the record.' G

No particularity of the difficulties referred to was furnished and the letter to the Registrar was not enclosed. It is to be remarked on that in para 6 of the founding affidavit the disappearance of the file and the theft of the computers were set in the context of earlier extensions. The letter also records that an extension had been granted H until 13 December 2002 to file the record, contrary to the Registrar's notification.

(vi)

On 15 November 2002 the Registrar notified the appellant's Bloemfontein correspondents (with a copy to the respondent's attorneys) that the appeal had lapsed due to non-compliance with the Rules of this Court. I

(vii)

As late as 3 December the appellant's attorneys arranged a meeting with the respondent's attorneys during which agreement was sought regarding the manner of preparation of the bundles. According to the deponent to the answering affidavit, 'immediate J

Heher JA

co-operation was furnished to the...