CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Carstens NO and Others v Carstens

Citation(409/11) [2012] ZASCA 62 (10 May 2012)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Civil ProcedureAppeals

Facts of the Case

The appellants (the first to fourth appellants representing a Trust, and the fifth appellant in his personal capacity) raised a point in law before the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth. Dambuza J sitting as court of first instance dismissed the point in law and granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The matter concerned a dispute between the Trust and the fifth appellant on one side, and Brigid Mary Carstens (the respondent) on the other. The specific nature of the underlying dispute is not detailed in the judgment.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the dismissal of a point in law, which amounts to the dismissal of an exception, is appealable
  • Whether an interlocutory order dismissing an exception can be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was struck off the roll. The Trust (represented by the first to fourth appellants) and the fifth appellant were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of appeal jointly and severally.

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal of a point in law which amounts to the dismissal of an exception constitutes an interlocutory order and is not appealable to the Supreme Court of Appeal. An exception that has been dismissed does not constitute a final order capable of being appealed.

Obiter Dicta

The judgment is brief and focused solely on the jurisdictional issue. There are no obiter dicta or non-binding observations in this judgment. The court did not comment on the merits of the underlying dispute between the parties or make any observations beyond what was necessary to determine the appealability of the order.

Legal Significance

This case reaffirms the established principle in South African civil procedure that the dismissal of an exception is an interlocutory order and is not appealable. It serves as a reminder of the limitations on the right to appeal and the distinction between final and interlocutory orders. The case reinforces the binding precedents established in Maize Board v Tiger Oats Ltd and Zweni v Minister of Law and Order regarding the appealability of exceptions.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Case Network

Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Related Cases

Referenced by

Cited By

  • Itzikowitz v Absa Bank Limited(20729/2014) [2016] ZASCA 43 (31 March 2016)

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.