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
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

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.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Maize Board v Tiger Oats Limited and OthersCase No: 151/2001
    Applies

    Applied as specific authority for the proposition that an order dismissing an exception is interlocutory and therefore not appealable.

Cited By 2 Cases

  • Elwyn Dale Harlech-Jones v Shirley Margaret Harlech-Jones(188/2011) [2012] ZASCA 19 (22 March 2012)
    Considers

    Court considers the principle that it may be against public policy for a woman to be supported by two men at the same time, but ultimately rejects this as an…

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

    Cited as one of a long line of cases accepting and following the Maize Board principle that dismissal of an exception is not appealable.

Practice This Case

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

Explore More Cases

More Civil Procedure cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19
  • Aaron Kundiona v Masvingo Cooperative Union and Messenger of CourtHMA 05-20; HC 25-20

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97