Appolus v Shipanga and Another (APPEAL 146 of 1992) [1992] NAHC 1 (4 September 1992)

A. 1 4 6 / 92 1 9 9 2 / 0 9 / 04 E M IL A P P O L US V E R S US A N D R E AS ZAK S H I P A N GA A ND O NE OTHER F r a nk J E X E C U T I ON OF O R D ER P E N D I NG A P P E AL - A p p e al a g a i n st o r d er s o u g ht - a b a n d o n m e nt of o r i g i n al r e l i ef s o u g ht - e f f e ct of n o t i ce of appeal - d i s c r e t i o n a ry r e m e dy - p r o s p e c ts of s u c c e ss w h e re e x e c u t i on of o r d er m a k es a p p e al i l l u s o r y. U r g e nt A p p l i c a t i on - o r i g i n al a p p l i c a t i on c l e a r ly u r g e nt then - R e c u s al w i t h d r a wn Judge g i v i ng o r d er w h i ch is sought to be e x e c u t ed a p p l i c a t i on u r g e nt c o u n t e r - a p p l i c a t i on c o u n t e r - a p p l i c a t i on - r e m a i ns a n s w e r ed by - n ot p r o h i b i t ed from h e a r i ng l a t er a p p l i c a t i o n. IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF N A M I B IA In t he m a t t er b e t w e en E M IL A P P O L US v e r s us C/K A P P L I C A NT A N D R E AS ZAK SHIPANGA F I R ST R E S P O N D E NT T HE D E P U TY SHERIFF OF W I N D H O EK S E C O ND R E S P O N D E NT CORAM: FRANK, J. H e a rd o n: 1992.09.02,04 D e l i v e r ed o n: 1992.09.04 J U D G M E NT FRANK, J.: In t h is m a t t er t h e re is an a p p l i c a t i on t h at t he e x e c u t i on of an order by m y s e lf m a de on t he 2 8 th A u g u st 1992 o r d e r i ng a sale in e x e c u t i on to c o n t i n ue t o m o r r ow be a u t h o r i s ed to c o n t i n ue even t h o u gh a n o t i ce of a p p e al h as b e en filed against my o r d er issued on F r i d ay t he 2 8 th A u g u st 1 9 9 2. To a v o id c o n f u s i on in t h is m a t t er I r e f er to Mr E m il A p p o l us as t he A p p l i c a nt and to Mr A n d r e as Zak S h i p a n ga as t he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt in this a p p l i c a t i o n. It is a p p o s i te b r i e f ly to state t he h i s t o ry of t h is a p p l i c a t i on as the a f f i d a v i ts in support of t he o r i g i n al a p p l i c a t i on launched on F r i d ay t he 2 8 th A u g u st 1992 is i n c o r p o r a t ed into the p a p e rs of t h is a p p l i c a t i on by t he A p p l i c a n t. On F r i d ay the 28th A u g u st 1992 t he A p p l i c a nt o b t a i n ed an o r d er p o s t p o n i ng a sale in execution to be held on t he 2 9 th A u g u st for one w e ek on an urgent b a s i s. T he one w e ek p o s t p o n e m e nt w as at the request of c o u n s el w ho a p p e a r ed f or t he A p p l i c a n t. D e s p i te the fact that t he A p p l i c a nt o b t a i n ed t he o r d er that he r e q u e s t ed an appeal against t h is o r d er w as n o t e d. A p p l i c a nt now says on a f f i d a v it as h is r e p r e s e n t a t i ve did not contact him before seeking t he o r d e r, he c a n n ot be said to have w a i v ed his r i g h ts to a p p e a l. In my v i e w, that is not c o r r e c t. The A p p l i c a nt a b a n d o n ed t he r e l i ef sought in t he notice of motion and asked for t he w e ek p o s t p o n e m e nt and w h e t h er his counsel did so m i s t a k e n ly is n e i t h er h e re nor t h e r e. S e e: G c a y i ya v M i n i s t er of P o l i c e, 1973(1) SA 130 (A) 135 E-G; S. A. Y s t er en Staal Industriele K o r p o r a s ie B e p e rk v V an der M e r w e. 1984(3) 706 at 714 I - 715 B; F l o r e n ce v F l o r e n c e, 1948(3) SA 71 (N) at 7 3; J o s e ph v J o s e p h. 1951(3) SA 776 ( N ); Ex P a r te N e l. 1957(1) SA 216 B at 218 - 2 1 9. A l t h o u gh t he q u e s t i on as to whether the A p p l i c a nt a b a n d o n ed h is o r i g i n al relief at the hearing on t he 28th A u g u st 1992 is s o m e t h i ng t he A p p e al Court will h a ve to c o n s i d er I m e n t i on it h e re as it seemed have c a u s ed some c o n f u s i on in t h is a p p l i c a t i o n. T he A p p l i c a nt launched an application seeking t h at t he s a le in e x e c u t i o n, that I have already r e f e r r ed t o, w h i ch w as p o s t p o n ed to t he 5th September 1 9 9 2, i.e. t o m o r r o w, be s t a y ed p e n d i ng the outcome of the a p p e a l. A f t er t h is a p p l i c a t i on w as served on the First R e s p o n d e n t, t he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt launched a c o u n t er a p p l i c a t i on asking t h at t he sale in a c t i on not be stayed but be e x e c u t e d, as I h a ve a l r e a dy stated. A p p l i c a n t, after t he l a u n c h i ng of t he c o u n t er a p p l i c a t i on by t he First R e s p o n d e nt t h en w i t h d r ew h is a p p l i c a t i on b e c a u se according to his c o u n s el t he s a le w o u ld a u t o m a t i c a l ly be stayed by the noting of t he a p p e a l. I am not sure that the A p p l i c a nt is c o r r e c t. T he e f f e ct of t he n o t i ce of a p p e al w o u ld be that no r e s u l ts c an f l ow f r om t he o r d er g r a n t ed w h i ch w o u ld p l a ce the p a r t i es in a p o s i t i on d i f f e r e nt from that w h i ch they e n j o y ed i m m e d i a t e ly b e f o re t he order w as granted. S e e: A l e x a n d er v Jokl & O t h e r s, 1948(3) SA 269 (WLD) at 2 7 8. T h is w o u ld m e an that there w o u ld be no c o u rt o r d er i n t e r f e r i ng w i th t he sale and that the sale w o u ld h a ve to go a h e a d. T he d i f f i c u l ty that d o es arise in a m a t t er l i ke t h is i s, of c o u r s e, that the d a te on w h i ch t he sale had to go a h e ad had already e x p i r e d. Be that as it m a y, s e e i ng t h at it is c l e ar that the A p p l i c a nt in e s s e n ce w a n ts t he s a le s t a y ed and that is w hy he is opposing the relief s o u g ht by t he F i r st R e s p o n d e nt and the First R e s p o n d e nt w a n ts to e x e c u te on the o r d er granted and the issues h a ve b e en d e a lt w i th on t he p a p e rs b e f o re me and also to a v o id p o s s i b le f u r t h er a p p l i c a t i o ns in t h is m a t t er b e t w e en t he p a r t i e s, I i n t e nd d e a l i ng w i th the m a t t e r. I k n ow t h a t, as far as t he o n us is c o n c e r n e d, that an A p p l i c a nt must m a ke out a c a se for t he relief sought, but, in my v i e w, t he q u e s t i on of o n us is not in any w ay d e c i s i ve in the a p p l i c a t i on b e f o re m e, as I w i ll d e al w i th the facts later, w h i ch i n d i c a te t h at t he f a c ts t h at I am going to rely upon to c o me to my d e c i s i on is b a s i c a l ly common c a u se b e t w e en the p a r t i e s. F or r e a s o ns that w i ll b e c o me apparent later I d e al w i th t h is a p p l i c a t i on as if it w as brought a f t er a t t a c h m e nt and a d v e r t i s i ng in full c o m p l i a n ce w i th the r u l es of C o u r t. T he g r a n t i ng or not of an o r d er allowing the sale to p r o c e ed is in my d i s c r e t i o n, as w as stated in Rood v W a l l a c h, as q u o t ed in H e r b s t e in and V an W i n s e n. The Civil P r a c t i ce of t he S u p e r i or C o u rt in S o u th A f r i c a. 3rd ed. at p a ge 7 2 1: "In c o n s i d e r i ng in each p a r t i c u l ar m a t t er w h at r e al and s u b s t a n t i al justice r e q u i r e s, the c o u rt m ay t a ke i n to a c c o u nt all t he c i r c u m s t a n c es s u r r o u n d i ng t he c a s e. A nd a m o ng o t h er t h i n gs it w o u ld be justified, I t h i n k, in t a k i ng into c o n s i d e r a t i on the special c i r c u m s t a n c es of t he p a r t i e s. C a s es m ay occur in w h i ch it w o u ld be e x t r e m e ly hard on t he losing party to o r d er h im to p ay t he a m o u nt of t he judgment b e f o re a p p e a l i n g; but t h e re m ay be o t h er c a s es in w h i ch it w o u ld be e q u a l ly h a rd t h at the s u c c e s s f ul p a r ty should not r e c e i ve p a y m e nt of t he a m o u nt a w a r d e d, b e c a u se an a p p e al has b e en n o t e d. T he c o u rt should be c h a ry of taking t he c i r c u m s t a n c es of t he p a r ty into account, but it m ay in some c a s es c o n s i d er them " B e f o re I p r o c e ed I w i sh to state that, in my v i e w, it w o u ld be w r o ng to assess t he A p p l i c a n t 's p r o s p e c ts of s u c c e ss in a m a t t er such as t he p r e s e nt one and that is so, b e c a u s e, t he w h o le object of t he a p p e al w o u ld be c o m p l e t e ly d e f e a t ed if e x e c u t i on p r o c e e d s. S e e: W o od N . O. v E d w a r ds & A n o t h e r, 1966(3) SA 443 (R) at 4 4 6. I m u st state that I do not w i sh to c o n s i d er the p r o s p e c ts of s u c c e ss at t h is stage d e s p i te being u r g ed to do so by c o u n s el for the A p p l i c a nt w ho says it is r e l e v a n t, at l e a st in t he sense of d e c i d i ng w h e t h er t he a p p e al is v e x a t i o us or f r i v o l o u s. As a l r e a dy stated I p r o c e ed to assess the a p p l i c a t i on on t he b a s is t h at a p r o p er w a r r a nt of a t t a c h m e nt and p r o p er a d v e r t i s e m e nt as far as t he sale w as c o n c e r n ed w as i s s u ed and p u b l i s h e d. If t h is w as so, w h at w o u ld the C o u r t 's a t t i t u de h a ve b e en t o w a r ds the A p p l i c a n t 's a p p l i c a t i on t h at he be a f f o r d ed u n t il December to pay the o u t s t a n d i ng d e b t. It is c l e ar from t he p a p e rs b e f o re Court that a judgment w as g r a n t ed a g a i n st t he A p p l i c a nt during 1989 and t h at t he j u d g m e nt debt that is now sought to be r e c o v e r ed at t he s a le is p u r s u a nt to that o r d e r. It is also further c o m m on c a u se that t he A p p l i c a n t, on t wo o c c a s i o n s, m a de o f f e rs to t he a t t o r n ey a c t i ng on behalf of the First R e s p o n d e nt to r e p ay t he judgment debt in i n s t a l m e n t s. In b o th t h o se i n s t a n c es t he A p p l i c a nt r e n e g ed on h is u n d e r t a k i ng a l t h o u gh it is f a ir to say that in t he second c a se t h e re w as a c o u n t er o f f er m a de w h i ch t he A p p l i c a nt just ignored. T he A p p l i c a nt in his a f f i d a v it now b e f o re C o u rt e x p l a i ns t h at in t he first i n s t a n ce w h e re an o f f er w as m a de he w as u n d er t he i m p r e s s i on that he had p r o s p e c ts to r e p ay t he a m o u nt but that the p r o s p e c ts did not m a t e r i a l i se and he t h e r e f o re did not do a n y t h i ng e l s e. He d o es not say that he a p p r o a c h ed the a t t o r n e ys again and told them about h is p r o b l e m s. As far as the second o c c a s i on is c o n c e r n ed he s t a t es t h at he m a de an o f f er of R 6 0 0, w h i ch w as not a c c e p t e d. A c o u n t er o f f er of R 7 00 w as m a de and he t h e r e f o re a l so d e c i d ed that n o t h i ng c o u ld be d o ne about it. O n ce a g a in he did not c o n t a ct the a t t o r n e ys of t he First R e s p o n d e nt to i n d i c a te t h at it w as i m p o s s i b le for him to c o me up w i th t he R 7 00 but t h at he stood w i th his o f f er of R 6 0 0. T he A p p l i c a nt n ow in his p a p e rs state that since t he b e g i n n i ng of t h is y e ar he is being e n t i t l ed to an income of R6 000 p er m o n t h, but b e c a u se of his v a r i o us o t h er debts he c o u ld not u t i l i se t h is m o n ey to pay the F i r st R e s p o n d e n t. T h is he d o es w i t h o ut g i v i ng any d e t a il as to w h at his o t h er c o m m i t m e n ts are supposed to be and he just m a k es t he a l l e g a t i o n, as I h a ve just stated. He f u r t h e r m o re stated in h is a p p l i c a t i on that he w as a 5 0% s h a r e h o l d er in a company w h i ch h a s, a c c o r d i ng to him, u n e n c u m b e r ed a s s e ts to t he t u ne of R 4 90 000 of w h i ch a p p r o x i m a t e ly R 2 00 0 0 0, a c c o r d i ng to him, is c a sh on h a n d. In his a p p l i c a t i on n ow he says he c a n n ot r a i se a loan from anyone and a l so not from t he c o m p a ny b e c a u se the R 2 00 000 in c a sh w i ll be needed as o p e r a t i ng e x p e n s e s. He d o es not g i ve any d e t a i ls nor d o es he g i ve any r e a s o ns as to w hy the c o m p a ny of w h i ch he is such a b ig s h a r e h o l d er is not able to r a i se t he m o n ey n ow o w i ng to assist him nor as to w hy he c o u ld not m a ke a b e t t er o f f er or c a n n ot m a ke a b e t t er offer t h an t he o ne he m a de to t he F i r st R e s p o n d e n t. In fact he says that b e c a u se of h is t r a ck r e c o rd in the past he is not c r e d i t - w o r t hy and he is u n a b le to r a i se m o n ey from any i n s t i t u t i o n, w h a t s o e v e r. W i th such a t r a ck r e c o rd and w i th the facts I m e n t i o n ed a b o v e, in my v i e w, it is c l e ar that the F i r st R e s p o n d e nt w as e n t i t l ed to react to the o f f er he m a de t h em the w ay he r e a c t e d. H a v i ng c o me to that c o n c l u s i on I w i sh to state o n ce again t h at e v en had all t he r e q u i r e m e n ts of the r u le b e en c o m p l i ed w i th - t he n o n - c o m p l i a n ce w h i ch he now i n t e n ds taking on a p p e al - he w o u ld not h a ve been able to r a i se t he m o n e y, b e c a u se on his own v e r s i on he w i ll only be a b le to pay in D e c e m b e r. E v en in t h is a p p l i c a t i on he p e r s i s ts in t h at v e r s i o n. T he r e a s o ns that he a d v a n c es for only b e i ng a b le to p ay in D e c e m b er I find u n a c c e p t a b l e. I w o u ld not in my d i s c r e t i o n, even had all t he rules been c o m p l i ed w i t h, had g i v en h im t he o p p o r t u n i ty to effect p a y m e nt as he asked. It seems to me that t he p r e j u d i ce he c o m p l a i ns about of is t he fact t h at he w i ll lose a v a l u a b le asset if his 5 0% share is sold b e c a u se firstly, the share w o u ld not fetch t he m a r k et v a l ue t h e r e of and s e c o n d l y, it w i ll be p o t e n t i a l ly d a m a g i ng to him as far as his future income earning p o t e n t i al is c o n c e r n e d. As far as t he fact that t he share w i ll not r e a l i se its full v a l ue is c o n c e r n e d, I w i sh to state that if t he sale is p r o p e r ly a d v e r t i s ed and if w h at the A p p l i c a nt told t he Court is c o r r e c t, I h a ve no d o u bt that he should be a b le to raise a s u b s t a n t i al amount from t he sale of t he s h a r e. As far as his future p o t e n t i al loss is c o n c e r n e d, I am v e ry d u b i o us about t h is as his c o - s h a r e h o l d er in h is u r g e nt a p p l i c a t i on l a u n c h ed in t h is m a t t er stated that the c o n c e s s i on that t he c o m p a ny had a p p a r e n t ly c o u ld be w i t h d r a wn at t he w h im of t he A p p l i c a n t. He states in p a r a g r a ph 5, that is t he c o- s h a r e h o l d e r, Mr J a p h et S h a p a ma H e l l a o, s t a t es t he f o l l o w i n g: "If t he share c e r t i f i c a te of the A p p l i c a nt is sold and t he A p p l i c a nt w i t h d r a ws the fish c o n c e s s i on from t he company B L UE R I B B ON F I S H I NG (PTY) L T D, t he said company w i ll not be a b le to do b u s i n e ss a n y m o re and w i ll r e s u lt in i r r e p a r a b le loss for m e ". It is t h us not c l e ar from t he A p p l i c a n t 's p a p e rs w h e t h er he w i ll i n d e ed suffer t h is loss as it seems that he w o u ld be a b le to w i t h h o ld or to k e ep t he c o n c e s s i on a p a rt from t he a s s e ts of t he c o m p a ny and t he p u r c h a s er of t he share w o u ld not as such b e c o me e n t i t l ed to t he b e n e f i ts of t he c o n c e s s i o n. T he fact that he w o u ld p e r h a ps be p r e j u d i c ed in t he sense that t he shares w o u ld be u n d e r v a l u ed at t he sale by the p r o s p e c t i ve p u r c h a s e rs i s, in my v i e w, in t he c i r c u m s t a n c es of t h is c a se not a factor to be c o n s i d e r ed and i n d e ed as w as stated in S h a rp v G r o b l e r. 18 CTR, 485 w h e re a stay w as sought on t he u n d e r s t a n d i ng that if t he p r o p e r ty w e re r e a l i s ed at a later d a t e, there w o u ld be a r i se in t he p r o p e r ty m a r k et and w h e re t he court p er M a a s d o r p, J. said: "No c r e d i t or is b o u nd to w a it u n t il a f a ir v a l ue c an be o b t a i n ed by a d m i n i s t e r i ng the e s t a te c a r e f u l l y. He is e n t i t l ed to o b t a in his e x e c u t i on at o n c e ". In t he c i r c u m s t a n c es of t h is c a se w h e re t he A p p l i c a nt h as not m a de out any a c c e p t a b le r e a s o ns as to w hy he should be a f f o r d ed t he o p p o r t u n i ty to pay off his i n d e b t e d n e ss in t he w ay he w i s h es to pay it off w h i c h, in my v i e w, is a t o t a l ly u n r e a s o n a b le t a k i ng into account his f i n a n c i al p o s i t i o n, I c a n n ot but d i s m i ss any stay in the e x e c u t i on of t he o r d e r. As I h a ve stated t he a b o ve c o n c l u s i on I h a ve r e a c h ed on t he b a s is that t h e re w as no d e f e c ts in t he w r it of a t t a c h m e nt or in t he a d v e r t i s e m e nt issued p u r s u a nt to t he w r it of a t t a c h m e n t. F r om t he f o u n d i ng p a p e r s, h o w e v e r, it is c l e ar that on t h o se p a p e rs at least t he w r it of a t t a c h m e nt w as not d e a lt w i th in t e r ms of t he r u l es and t h is is one of t he m a t t e rs w h i ch t he A p p l i c a nt t e n ds t a k i ng on a p p e a l. T he q u e s t i o n, h o w e v e r, in my v i e w, is w h e t h er t he A p p l i c a nt w o u ld h a ve suffered a ny p r e j u d i ce had the r u le be c o m p l i ed w i th b e c a u se if t he r u le had b e en c o m p l i ed w i t h, he w o u ld h a ve b e en forced to m a ke p a y m e n t. As I have a l r e a dy i n d i c a t e d, t h e re is no i n d i c a t i on that he w o u ld h a ve been in a p o s i t i on to p ay had t he r u le b e en c o m p l i ed w i t h. It a p p e a rs from t he p a p e rs b e f o re me that t he p o s t p o n e m e nt of t he sale from t he 29th A u g u st to t he 5th S e p t e m b e r, w h i ch w as o r d e r ed by m e, a p p e a rs not to h a ve b e en d o ne in t he c o r r e ct f a s h i o n. An a t t o r n ey w ho filed an a f f i d a v it on b e h a lf of t he A p p l i c a nt states that he a t t e n d ed t he a u c t i on on t he 29th A u g u st and that it w as not p u b l i c ly a n n o u n c ed at t h at a u c t i on that t he sale w as b e i ng p o s t p o n ed for one w e e k. Mr G r o b l er says that t h is is at least p o t e n t i a l ly p r e j u d i c i al to the A p p l i c a nt and t he A p p l i c a nt h i m s e lf a l so says so in his a f f i d a v i t. I a g r ee w i th the s u b m i s s i on by Mr G r o b l e r. It is c l e ar t h at t he A p p l i c a nt w i ll only be dealt w i th fairly if a ll p o t e n t i al p u r c h a s e rs are m a de a w a re of t he fact t h at t he share is b e i ng sold at a p u b l ic a u c t i on and I d o, t h e r e f o r e, i n t e nd m a k i ng an order that t he sale p r o c e ed but I f u r t h er i n t e nd framing t he o r d er in such a w ay as to p r o t e ct t he i n t e r e s ts of t he A p p l i c a nt and even a p o s s i b le i n t e r e st of h is c o - s h a r e h o l d e r, M r. H e l l a o, in t he c o m p a ny if t h at is p o s s i b l e. Had t he w a r r a nt of a t t a c h m e nt b e en e f f e c t ed p r o p e r ly t he A p p l i c a nt w o u ld h a ve had b e en given n o t i ce of t he a t t a c h m e n t, w h i ch a c c o r d i ng to t he f o u n d i ng p a p e rs in t he o r i g i n al a p p l i c a t i o n, he w as not g i v en and t he a d v e r t i s e m e nt for t he sale in e x e c u t i on w o u ld not h a ve p r o c e e d ed u n t il at least 15 d a ys after t he w r it of a t t a c h m e n t. I i n t e nd t a k i ng t h is into account in t he u l t i m a te o r d er I p r o p o se m a k i n g. I a l so t a ke into account that t he A p p e l l a n t, on h is o wn v e r s i o n, o b t a i n ed k n o w l e d ge of the i n t e n d ed s a le in e x e c u t i on on t he 22nd A u g u st 1 9 9 2. In e s s e n ce w h at I i n t e nd d o i ng is to give h im all t he t i me that he w o u ld h a ve r e c e i v ed had t he w r it of a t t a c h m e nt b e en e x e c u t ed p r o p e r ly r u n n i ng from t he 22nd A u g u st 1 9 9 2, w h i ch is t he d a te t h at he r e c e i v ed k n o w l e d ge of t he i n t e n d ed sale of t he s h a re c e r t i f i c a t e. In that w ay t h e re c an be no p r e j u d i ce w h a t s o e v er to him in that he w i ll h a ve all t he o p p o r t u n i ty he w o u ld h a ve had, had t he w r it of a t t a c h m e nt and t he s a le b e en e f f e c t ed p r o p e r ly in a c c o r d a n ce w i th t he r u l es and, as I h a ve already said, if he had then b r o u g ht an a p p l i c a t i on for t he stay on t he same g r o u n ds that he n ow b r i n gs I w o u ld h a v e, in my d i s c r e t i on for t he r e a s o ns I h a ve a l r e a dy m e n t i o n e d, r e f u s ed it. B e f o re I c o me to my p r o p o s ed o r d e r, I w i sh to d e al w i th c e r t a in o t h er m a t t e rs w h i ch w e re r a i s ed d u r i ng t he c o u r se of t he a p p l i c a t i o n. Mr Smuts t o ok t he p o i nt that t he A p p l i c a n t 's n o t i ce of a p p e al w as a n u l l i ty and t h at he d id not c o m p ly w i th t he r u l e s. W h e t h er a n o t i ce of a p p e al is a n u l l i ty is n o r m a l ly t he p r e r o g a t i ve of t he A p p e al C o u rt to d e c i de and f u r t h e r m o r e, in t he c i r c u m s t a n c es of t h is c a se w h e re t he A p p l i c a nt has a r i g ht of a p p e al and he is s t i ll w e ll w i t h in t i me to a m e nd h is n o t i ce w i t h o ut g e t t i ng a n y b o d y 's l e a v e, should he feel it is d e f e c t i v e, I am not p r e p a r ed to d e c i de t h is m a t t er on such a t e c h n i c al a s p e ct as to w h e t h er the n o t i ce of a p p e al by t he A p p l i c a nt is d e f e c t i ve or n o t. R i g ht at t he b e g i n n i ng of t h is a p p l i c a t i on Mr G r o b l e r, on b e h a lf of t he A p p l i c a n t, asked me to r e c u se m y s e lf from t h is a p p l i c a t i on b e c a u s e, a c c o r d i ng to him, that w o u ld a m o u nt to t h is C o u rt sitting on a p p e al on its own j u d g m e n t. I r e f u s ed to r e c u se m y s e lf as I c o u ld not find any r e a s on as to w hy I c o u ld not h e ar t he m a t t e r. It w as not a q u e s t i on of s i t t i ng on a p p e al on my o wn j u d g m e n t. As far as t he p r o s p e c ts of s u c c e ss m i g ht have b e c o me an i s s u e, it o f t en b e c o m es an i s s ue w h en leave to a p p e al is g r a n t ed or is s o u g h t, and in any event t he c o n s i d e r a t i o ns in an a p p l i c a t i on such as is b e f o re C o u rt at t h is stage is c o m p l e t e ly d i f f e r e nt from t he c o n s i d e r a t i o ns that w e re b e f o re the Court at t he t i me t he o r i g i n al a p p l i c a t i on w as h e a r d. I w i s h, h o w e v e r, to state in p a s s i n g, as a l r e a dy i n d i c a t ed at t he b e g i n n i ng of t h is judgment w h e re I d e a lt w i th t he a b a n d o n m e nt or not of t he a p p e a l, that I am of t he v i ew that t he A p p l i c a n t 's c h a n g es of success is slim indeed and if I w e re of t he v i ew that his p r o s p e c ts of s u c c e ss w as indeed g o o d, I w o u ld have c o n s i d e r ed that as a factor in his f a v o u r. H o w e v e r, as I h a ve a l r e a dy said, t he fact that I am of t he v i ew that his c h a n g es of success are slim, is not t a k en i n to a c c o u nt as a factor against him in so far as t h is judgment is c o n c e r n e d. T he o n ly o t h er issue w h i ch r e m a i ns is that a n o t h er point in l i m i ne t a k en on behalf of t he A p p l i c a nt w as that t he First R e s p o n d e nt did not m a ke out a c a se for t he m a t t er to be h e a rd on an u r g e nt b a s i s, as p r o v i d ed for in t he rules of c o u r t. T he A p p l i c a nt i n i t i a t ed t h is a p p l i c a t i on and it w as c l e a r ly u r g e nt w h en he i n i t i a t ed it b e c a u se at that stage he w as s t i ll u n d er the i m p r e s s i on that if he did not get an o r d er the s a le w o u ld p r o c e ed t o m o r r o w. The F i r st R e s p o n d e nt w as e n t i t l ed to respond to that a p p l i c a t i on as he did, and w as a l so e n t i t l ed to b r i ng a c o u n t er a p p l i c a t i on as t he r u l es p r o v i de for it and t he fact that t he A p p l i c a nt then w i t h d r a ws h is a p p l i c a t i on w h i ch w as d e f i n i t e ly an urgent m a t t er d o es not suddenly r e m o ve t he feet from u n d er the F i r st R e s p o n d e nt in his c o u n t er a p p l i c a t i o n. Had t he A p p l i c a nt p r o c e e d ed w i th his a p p l i c a t i on it w o u ld c l e a r ly h a ve b e en a p p o s i te to deal w i th the c o u n t er a p p l i c a t i on at t he same t i me as it d e a lt w i th t he same issue and it w o u ld o b v i o u s ly be t o t a l ly i n a p p o s i te to deal w i th the t wo a p p l i c a t i o ns p i e c e m e al b e c a u se n o t i o n a l ly the one is u r g e nt and t he o t h er one is not u r g e n t. It is so that t h e re is no e x p r e ss a l l e g a t i o ns that the m a t t er is urgent and of t he p r e j u d i ce that w o u ld be suffered if t he m a t t er is not d e a lt w i th u r g e n t ly and t h e re is c a se law w h i ch says that one m u st set t h is out in one's a f f i d a v i t. It should not be left to i m p l i c a t i on and d e d u c t i on for t he C o u r t, but t h e re is a l so a c a s e, t he n a me of w h i ch I u n f o r t u n a t e ly c a n n ot r e c a l l, w h e re it w as held that w h e re it is c l e ar from t he facts in t he m a t t er and not by w ay of i m p l i c a t i on or d e d u c t i on that t he m a t t er is an u r g e nt o n e, that t he C o u rt s h o u ld p r o c e ed on an u r g e nt b a s i s. T he C o u rt should not get b o g g ed d o wn in t e c h n i c a l i t i es and not hear t he m a t t er as an u r g e nt o ne w h e re t he facts b e f o re C o u rt i n d i c a t es that it is an u r g e nt m a t t er and in t h is c a se t h is w as e x a c t ly such a m a t t e r. I t h e r e f o re m a ke t he f o l l o w i ng o r d e r: T h at t he sale in t h is m a t t er is p o s t p o n ed to the 19th S e p t e m b er 1992 and that it is o r d e r ed that the sale shall a g a in be p u b l i s h ed in t he n e c e s s a ry n e w s p a p e rs as r e q u i r ed by t he r u l es of c o u rt to t a ke p l a ce on t he 19th S e p t e m b er t h is y e ar and that the n o t i ce of a p p e al lodged by t he A p p l i c a nt in t h is m a t t er shall not have the effect of s t a y i ng t he sale on t he 19th S e p t e m b er t h is y e a r. I m ay just in p a s s i ng m e n t i on that t h is d o es not n e c e s s a r i ly m e an that the w ay is not open for the A p p l i c a nt in t h is m a t t e r, should he feel that he c an c o me up w i th a r e a s o n a b le o f f e r, to a p p r o a ch the Court on t he b a s is of the R u l es of C o u rt or that t he p a r t i es c a n n ot settle t h is m a t t e r, b e c a u se t he sale h as b e en p o s t p o n e d. S h o u ld that h a p p e n, t he n e c e s s a ry e f f e ct of such a g r e e m e nt or such further a p p l i c a t i on w i ll h a ve to be c o n s i d e r ed p r i or to the s a l e. I n ow d e al w i th t he c o s ts of t h is m a t t e r: T he A p p l i c a n t, as a l r e a dy i n d i c a t e d, launched an a p p l i c a t i on w h i ch he w i t h d r e w. T he R e s p o n d e n t s' l a u n c h ed a c o u n t er a p p l i c a t i on w h i c h, as is c l e ar from t he a b o ve o r d e r, h a ve h as b e en p a r t i a l ly s u c c e s s f u l. Seeing that t he A p p l i c a nt h as w i t h d r a wn his o r i g i n al a p p l i c a t i on t he c o s ts r e l a t i ng to t he o r i g i n al a p p l i c a t i o n, n a m e ly t he n o t i ce of m o t i on and t he a f f i d a v i ts a n n e x ed t h e r e to must be b o r ne by t he A p p l i c a n t. As far as the c o u n t er a p p l i c a t i on is c o n c e r n ed it has b e en s u b s t a n t i a l ly s u c c e s s f ul and t he c o s t s, t h e r e f o r e, m u st a l so be b o r ne by t he A p p l i c a n t. In t he r e s u lt t he a p p l i c a t i on by t he First R e s p o n d e nt is g r a n t ed w i th c o s ts as a m e n d ed and t he c o s ts of t he a p p l i c a t i on l a u n c h ed by t he A p p l i c a nt and w h i ch he w i t h d r e w, shall also be b o r ne by t he A p p l i c a n t. FRANK, J U D GE C o u n s el for the A p p l i c a n t: A d v . Z . J . G r o b l er I n s t r u c t ed by: V an W y n g a a r d t, K o c k, V an d er W e s t h u i z e n, Du T o it & P a r t n e r s. C o u n s el for the R e s p o n d e n t s: A d v . D . S m u ts I n s t r u c t ed b y: P. F. Koep & C o m p a n y.