|
Back to Index
Southern
Africa Tribunal Fick / Etheredge / Campbell Judgement
Supreme
Court of Appeal South Africa
September 20, 2012
Download
this article
- Acrobat
PDF version (71.2KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader
on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking
here.
Case
No: 657/11
In the matter
between:
GOVERNMENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF and
LOUIS KAREL
FICK First Respondent
RICHARD THOMAS
ETHEREDGE Second Respondent
WILLIAM MICHAEL
CAMPBELL Third Respondent
THE PRESIDENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Fourth Respondent
Neutral citation:
Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick & others
(657/11) [2012]
ZASCA 122 (20 SEPTEMBER 2012)
Coram: NUGENT,
VAN HEERDEN and MALAN JJA, SOUTHWOOD and ERASMUS AJJA
Heard: 27 AUGUST
2012
Delivered: 20
SEPTEMBER 2012
Summary: Tribunal
of Southern African whether competent whether binding on Zimbabwe.
2
ORDER
On appeal from
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (R D Claassen J sitting as court
of first instance):
The appeal is
dismissed with costs that include the costs of two counsel.
Judgment
NUGENT JA (VAN
HEERDEN and MALAN JJA and SOUTHWOOD and ERASMUS AJJA CONCURRING)
[1] This appeal
has a long history that I relate later in this judgment. For the
moment a summary will suffice to explain what is before us. It arises
from litigation between the Republic of Zimbabwe (the appellant,
which I will refer to as Zimbabwe) and two former farmers in that
country (the respondents) before the Tribunal of the Southern African
Development Community (SADC). In one instalment of those proceedings
the Tribunal ordered Zimbabwe to pay the legal costs of the respondents.
Zimbabwe declined to do so, whereupon the respondents applied to
the North Gauteng High Court to have the costs order recognised
in this country.
The proceedings
were commenced by edictal citation authorised by that court (Tuchten
J). Zimbabwe declined to participate in the proceedings and an order
was made by default by Rabie J recognizing the order of the Tribunal.
A writ of execution
was then issued authorising the Sheriff for the district of Cape
Town to attach immovable properties belonging to Zimbabwe and to
sell them in execution of the Tribunal's costs order.
[2] Zimbabwe
was prompted into action when it became aware that its properties
were scheduled to be sold in execution. Believing that the properties
were to be sold writ it applied urgently to the North Gauteng High
Court for relief aimed at setting it aside.1 Its belief was mistaken.
It was not the respondents' writ that had initiated the scheduled
sales but instead a writ that had 1Case No 77881/09.
2 Case No 47945/10.
3 Case No 72184/10.
4 Government
of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick (47945/10, 72184/10, 77881/09)
[2011] ZAGPPAC 76 (6 June 2011).
[3] Zimbabwe
then commenced a fresh application for rescission of the order that
had been made by Rabie J recognizing the order of the Tribunal.2
Later it launched yet a further application for rescission of the
order that had been made by Tuchten J.3
Download
the full document
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
