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

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

CitationCase number 223/98 (SCA)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Labour LawCivil Procedure
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
Jurisdiction

Facts of the Case

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.

Legal Issues

  • 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

Judicial Outcome

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.

Ratio Decidendi

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.

Obiter Dicta

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.

Legal Significance

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.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 2 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • The President of the Ordinary Court Martial, Lieutenant-Colonel Mardon N.O. and Others v The Freedom of Expression Institute and Others(CCT 5/99) [1999] ZACC 10 (24 August 1999)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that section 21A confers a discretion on the court.

Cited By 48 Cases

  • Absa Bank Limited v André Keet(817/2013) [2015] ZASCA 81 (28 May 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for the long-standing principle that courts should not decide issues that are of solely academic interest.

  • Absa Bank Limited v Peter Jacobus Janse van Rensburg and Gina Mari Janse van Rensburg and Absa Bank Limited v Elizabeth Francina Maree and Stefanus Maree(228/2013) [2014] ZASCA 34
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that s 21A confers a discretion on the court and that important legal questions may justify hearing an appeal that would otherwise have…

  • Atkin v Botes(566/10) [2011] ZASCA 125 (9 September 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that distinguishing between interlocutory and final decisions is a question that has vexed lawyers for centuries and is intrinsically…

  • Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd v Vexall (Pty) Ltd and The Competition CommissionCase Number: 182/CAC/Mar20 (delivered 15 July 2020)
    Considers

    Considered the more parsimonious position that prejudice caused by an interim order is not decisive in determining appealability.

Practice This Case

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

  • Centre for Child Law v The Governing Body of Hoërskool Fochville(156/2015) [2015] ZASCA 155 (8 October 2015)
    Applies

    Cited for the purpose and effect of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 regarding academic or hypothetical questions.

  • Chirwa v Transnet Limited and Others(CCT 78/06) [2007] ZACC 23
    Considers

    Considered as adopting a purposive reading of section 157 of the LRA in support of having labour disputes adjudicated solely within the structures created by…

  • Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation(972/2016) [2017] ZASCA 134 (29 September 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that an interim interdict is not usually appealable and that prejudice in the form of time run that cannot be recalled is taken into…

  • Clear Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services(757/10) [2011] ZASCA 164 (29 September 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts decide disputes between parties and do not pronounce on abstract questions of law.

  • Collins Letsoalo and Another v Mothusi Lukhele(332/2023) [2025] ZASCA 195 (17 December 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts do not pronounce on issues where the sought outcome can no longer provide tangible relief to the parties.

  • Commercial Workers' Union of South Africa v Tao Ying Metal Industries(CCT 40/07) [2008] ZACC 15
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the characterisation of a dispute by the parties is not necessarily conclusive as to its nature; it is necessary to look at the…

  • DRDGOLD Limited and Another v Nkala and Others(688/2016) [2023] ZASCA 9 (6 February 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that both jurisdictional requirements for appeal must be present.

  • Fatima Maliwa Dlwati v King Sabata Dalindyebo FET CollegeCase No: P50/15 (Labour Court, Port Elizabeth)
    Distinguishes

    Court distinguishes Coin Security as not authority for dismissing claims without executor appointment; that case concerned claims where executors already…

  • Fedlife Assurance Limited v Hendrik Johannes WolfaardtCase No: 450/99
    Cites

    Cited as an example of debate concerning the ambit of matters falling within the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction under section 157(1).

  • Health Professions Council of South Africa v Emergency Medical Supplies and Training CC t/a EMS(435/09) [2010] ZASCA 65 (20 May 2010)
    Cites

    The court cites Schutz JA's statement that appealability is an intrinsically difficult issue not always answered in the same way.

  • International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd (with Bridon International Limited intervening)(CCT 59/09) [2010] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited as an example of the Supreme Court of Appeal holding that the grant of an interim interdict is not susceptible to appeal.

  • Jacobs v Baumann NO(126/08) [2009] ZASCA 43 (8 May 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an order is appealable if it disposes of an issue in the main action or anticipates or precludes relief which would or might be…

  • Joyina Jim Mahlangu and Sokhulumi Royal Council v Mkhambi Petros Mahlangu and Others(341/2016) [2017] ZASCA 81 (2 June 2017)
    Cites

    Cited to explain the purpose and effect of s 21A regarding abstract or hypothetical questions in appeals.

  • J R 209 Investments (Pty) Ltd and M & T Development (Pty) Ltd v Pine Villa Country Estate (Pty) Ltd; Pine Villa Country Estate (Pty) Ltd v J R 209 Investments (Pty) Ltd(617/07) [2009] ZASCA 3 (26 February 2009)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that an interim interdict is appealable if final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the court of first instance.

  • Land & Landbouontwikkelingsbank van Suid-Afrika v Pierre ConradieCase number: 452/03 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that section 21A confers a discretion on the court regarding whether to dismiss appeals that will have no practical effect or result.

  • Lethabo Masoga and Lebohang Maeleso v Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd and OthersCase no: JA 14/2018
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the commissioner or arbitrator is required to identify the nature of the dispute and take all facts into consideration in…

  • Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others(1271/2021) [2022] ZASCA 178
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that courts decide disputes between parties before them and do not pronounce on abstract questions of law when there is no dispute to…

  • Mabaso v National Commissioner of Police & another(1222/2017) [2019] ZASCA 43 (29 March 2019)
    Cites

    Cited as authority that courts do not decide issues of academic interest only.

  • Madibeng Local Municipality v DDP Valuers (Pty) Ltd and Another(1284/2017) [2020] ZASCA 70 (18 June 2020)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts do not give advice gratuitously but decide real disputes and do not speculate or theorise, and that the principle in s…

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

    Court applies the test from Cronshaw regarding when a decision is final, namely that it must dispose of an issue or portion of the issue in the main action or…

  • Manyatshe v M & G Media Limited(415/08) [2009] ZASCA 96 (17 September 2009)
    Cites

    Cited to explain the common law principle underlying s 21A that courts exist to settle live controversies and not to pronounce on hypothetical or abstract…

  • Marius Van Niekerk and Sweepro Brush (Pty) Ltd v Gerhard Albertus Van Niekerk and Sweepa Instruments (Pty) Ltd(460/06) [2007] ZASCA 116
    Applies

    Applied to support the principle that the grant of an interim interdict is not appealable, and that the question whether a decision is interlocutory or final…

  • Metlika Trading Limited and Others v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service2004 (6) SA 546 (SCA); Case No 427/03 and 438/03
    Applies

    Applied to determine appealability of an interim interdict, specifically whether the order is final in effect and susceptible to alteration.

  • M Fredericks and 47 Others v MEC for Education and Training, Eastern Cape and OthersCase CCT 27/01
    Follows

    Court follows the SCA's interpretation of item 12(1)(a) of schedule 7, holding that the dispute procedures of the 1956 Labour Relations Act must be followed…

  • Midi Television (Pty) Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape)(100/06) [2007] ZASCA 56
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that section 21A of the Supreme Court Act affords a discretion to dismiss an appeal where it has no practical effect.

  • National Director of Public Prosecutions v Phillips and OthersCase No: 202/2002
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that to entertain an appeal against a restraint order would defeat the purpose of the remedy.

  • National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Bader Bop (Pty) Ltd and AnotherCase CCT 14/02, 2002 (2) BLLR 139 (LAC)
    Cites

    The case is cited for the principle that in ascertaining the real dispute a court must look at the substance of the dispute and not at the form in which it is…

  • Panayiotou v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd(248/2016) [2017] ZASCA 12 (17 March 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that section 16(2)(a) was enacted to avoid overburdening appeal courts with matters which are of no practical moment.

  • Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others v The Minister of Health and Another; New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Limited v Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang NO and AnotherCase Nos 542/04 and 543/04
    Cites

    This court held that the purpose of the requirement for leave to appeal is to protect the court against baseless appeals by limiting appeals to those that have…

  • Radio Pretoria v The Chairperson of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and AnotherCase no: 402/03 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited as example of appeals dismissed because they had no prospect of being heard on the merits due to lack of practical effect, and for the principle that…

  • Rand Water Board v Rotek Industries (Pty) LtdCase no: 199/2002 (SCA)
    Follows

    Followed for the principle that section 21A reformulates principles relating to abstract, academic or hypothetical questions and that every case has to be…

  • Road Accident Fund v Faria(567/2013) [2014] ZASCA 65
    Cites

    Cited as authority for allowing an appeal on a moot point where it raises important questions of law likely to arise frequently in future.

  • Saidex (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Minister of Minerals and Energy NO and Others(49/10) [2011] ZASCA 102 (1 June 2011)
    Applies

    The court applies the principle from Cronshaw that the refusal of an interim interdict is, in principle, appealable.

  • SA Metal Group (Proprietary) Limited v The International Trade Administration Commission(267/2016) [2017] ZASCA 14 (17 March 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the general proposition that courts exist to settle concrete controversies not to pronounce on abstract questions or advise on differing contentions.

  • Tecmed Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Health(495/11) [2012] ZASCA 64 (21 May 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the fundamental feature of the judicial system that courts decide disputes between parties before them and do not pronounce on abstract questions of…

  • The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others v Moresport (Pty) Ltd and Others(360/08) [2009] ZASCA 63 (29 May 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the court retains discretion to hear an appeal involving a living issue even after settlement.

  • The Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Daniel Chaka Moabi(959/15) [2017] ZASCA 85 (2 June 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the purpose of requiring leave to appeal, namely to limit appeals to those which have reasonable prospects of success.

  • The Kenmont School and another v D M and others(454/12) [2013] ZASCA 79
    Cites

    Cited to explain the purpose and effect of s 21A as a reformulation of principles previously adopted in relation to appeals involving abstract, academic or…

  • The Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd and Another(835/2018) [2019] ZASCA 140 (01 October 2019)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should not decide issues purely for academic interest.

  • The Public Protector of South Africa v The Chairperson of the Section 194(1) Committee and Others(627/2023) [2024] ZASCA 131 (1 October 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the long-standing principle that courts should not decide issues of academic interest only.

  • Thulamela Municipality & another v Thovhele Midiavhathu Prince Kennedy Tshivhase & others(78/2014) [2015] ZASCA 57 (30 March 2015)
    Cites

    Cited with approval for the proposition that a preparatory or procedural order is a simple interlocutory order and not appealable unless it disposes of an…

  • T J H Potgieter NO v Daewoo Heavy Industries (Pty) LtdSaaknommer 466/2001
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that an interlocutory order, including both substantive and cost components that lack finality, is not appealable.

  • United Democratic Movement and Another v Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd and Others(1032/2019) [2021] ZASCA 4 (13 January 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that intrinsic prejudice from an interim interdict is not always irretrievable.

  • Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd(159/2023) [2024] ZASCA 53 (19 April 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that once a court is seized with jurisdiction, it retains that jurisdiction until the matter is concluded.

    • Explore More Cases

    More Labour Law cases

    • (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
    • Aaron Mwenje v Intermarket Building SocietySC. 80/05 (Civil Appeal No. 358/04)
    • Aaron Zhomwe v BHP Minerals CompanyS.C. 3/2001 (Civil Appeal No. 25/2000)
    • Abdool Samad Cassim v Richards Bay MineralsD 81/2021
    • Abishai Bonda and Daniel Mahoza v JR Goddard Contracting (Pvt) LtdHB 199/22, HC 1411/20
    • ACCA Zimbabwe v Cuthbert MunhupedziHH 232-21, HC 3522/20
    • Adcorp Workforce Solutions (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and OthersCase no: D 1280/19
    • Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited v Cassandra Myburgh and Colins BakerHH 538-21, HC 4465/21

    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