SCA Judgment Media Statement

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA STATEMENT – CASE HEARING IN SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

Navy Two CC v Industrial Zone Ltd

Supreme Court of Appeal -293/04	Hearing date: 6 September 2005
	Judgment date: 28 September 2005
Sole member of a close corporation seeking to represent it - whether refusal to grant him audience misdirection – whether case fell within exception to rule barring a person who is not a practitioner from representing a corporate entity – whether refusal to grant postponement was justified – default not adequately explained - bona fide defence not disclosed - circumstances in which a court will grant indulgence discussed.


Media Summary of Judgment
From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal. NAVY TWO CC V INDUSTRIAL ZONE LIMITED [1] The SCA today, 28 September 2005, dismissed an appeal by a close corporation, Navy Two CC, against the judgment of the Johannesburg High Court, in which Brassey AJ had dismissed its application for a postponement. The respondent company, Industrial Zone Limited, had launched an application for an order declaring that an agreement it had concluded with Navy Two CC to be null and void and of no force and effect, because of an alleged breach of the agreement. The sole representative of the close corporation, Mr Nannen, had put up an affidavit in which he sought to explain the reason for the corporation’s failure to file an answering affidavit and to indicate its defence on the merits of the main application. [2] The SCA was unanimous that the application for a postponement by the close corporation had been correctly refused. But the court was however divided on whether the point raised by Mr Nannen, concerning the refusal by Brassey AJ to grant him audience should be dealt with. Brassey AJ had refused Mr Nannen permission to represent the close corporation. The majority of the court ( Mthiyane JA, with Jafta JA and Maya AJA concurring) considered the question of the said refusal to grant audience to be crucial to the determination of the appeal. The majority held that Brassey AJ had misdirected himself and that the SCA was at large to interfere, set aside the refusal to grant Mr Nannen audience and to consider the postponement afresh. [3] The minority (Ponnan JA with him Scott JA concurring) took the view that the real issue was whether the close corporation had been prejudiced by Brassey AJ’s refusal to grant Mr Nannen audience. [4] The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs which including the costs of the condonation applicaton.