Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd v SA National Union for Security Officers and Others

A dispute arose in January 1997 between Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd (appellant), a security company, and fifty-five employees of its asset transfer division and their trade union (respondents). During a strike that the appellant contended was unprotected, certain respondents unlawfully occupied the appellant's premises, committed assaults and intimidation, and blockaded the entrance. On 16 January 1997, the appellant obtained an urgent eviction order from the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division and a rule nisi operating as an interim interdict restraining further unlawful conduct. The eviction order was executed and on 17 January 1997 all individual respondents were dismissed. On 31 October 1997, the High Court discharged the rule nisi, holding it lacked jurisdiction as the Labour Court had exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. The appellant appealed. Subsequently, the Labour Appeal Court upheld the dismissals as fair and legal, finally resolving all material disputes between the parties.

• Whether the appeal should be dismissed under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 on the basis that it would have no practical effect or result
• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the interdict or whether the Labour Court had exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Whether an appeal should be entertained when all disputes between the parties have been finally resolved and the order sought would have no practical application

The appeal was dismissed in terms of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

An appeal will be dismissed in terms of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 where the judgment or order sought will have no practical effect or result. Courts exist to settle concrete controversies and actual infringements of rights between parties, not to pronounce on abstract questions or hypothetical situations. An essential quality of an appeal is that there should exist between the parties a matter "in actual controversy which (the court) undertakes to decide as a living issue". Where all material disputes between parties have been finally resolved by other proceedings and the order sought on appeal (whether granted by the appeal court or by remittal) would have no practical application, the appeal must be dismissed under section 21A. The fact that a decision might resolve a point of law of general importance or potential future problems in other cases is insufficient to overcome the requirement that there be a live dispute between the parties.

The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) It noted that efforts to compare or equate facts of one case with another in the context of section 21A are unlikely to be of assistance, as every case must be decided on its own facts and the section confers a discretion; (2) The Court stated that the judgment in Natal Rugby Union v Gould 1999 (1) SA 432 (SCA) laid down no new or different criteria from those adopted in Premier, Provinsie Mpumalanga en'n Ander v Groblersdalse Stadsraad 1998 (2) SA 1136 (SCA); (3) The Court observed that it was questionable whether the present case fell into the category of cases where remittal is possible, though it was unnecessary to consider this further; (4) The Court noted approvingly the principle from English law (Ainsbury v Millington [1987] 1 All ER 929 (HL)) that courts decide disputes between parties before them and do not pronounce on abstract questions of law when there is no dispute to be resolved, even where the question is said to be of general importance.

This case is significant for its application and explanation of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, which codifies the long-standing principle that courts will not entertain appeals on abstract, academic or hypothetical questions. The judgment reinforces that courts exist to settle concrete controversies between parties, not to provide advisory opinions on points of law where there is no live dispute. It demonstrates that even where important legal questions arise (such as jurisdictional disputes between the High Court and Labour Court), an appeal will be dismissed if the underlying dispute has been resolved and the order sought would have no practical effect. The case provides guidance on when section 21A should be applied and confirms that the discretion must be exercised with reference to whether there remains a "living issue" between the parties. It also addresses the principle that only orders are appealable and that courts generally do not decide cases on a piecemeal basis.