MEC for Economic Affairs, Environment & Tourism, Eastern Cape v Kruizenga and Another

The respondents sued the MEC for Economic Affairs, Environment & Tourism (Eastern Cape) for damages arising from a fire that started on provincial land and spread to their properties, allegedly due to the negligence of provincial employees. During the course of litigation, two pre-trial conferences were held in terms of rule 37 of the Uniform Rules of Court. At these conferences, the State Attorney, acting for the MEC, conceded the merits of the claim and later admitted liability for certain heads of damages. These agreements were recorded in signed pre-trial minutes and placed before the trial court, which made an order based on the admissions. The MEC later sought to resile from the agreements, alleging that the State Attorney lacked actual authority to settle or compromise the claim without express approval, relying on an internal government practice requiring such approval.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case is a leading authority on the ostensible authority of attorneys, particularly the State Attorney, in the context of rule 37 pre-trial conferences. It affirms that parties are generally bound by agreements and admissions made by their legal representatives at pre-trial conferences and underscores the importance of finality and certainty in civil litigation. The judgment strengthens the effectiveness of rule 37 by preventing parties from resiling from pre-trial agreements based on undisclosed limitations of authority.