Hi-Q Automotive (Pty) Ltd v Erga Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another

Hi-Q Automotive (Pty) Ltd, as sub-lessor, obtained an urgent High Court order cancelling a sub-lease with Erga Investments (Pty) Ltd and directing Erga to vacate business premises in Midrand. After leave to appeal was refused by both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal on petition, Erga lodged an application for reconsideration to the President of the SCA under the proviso to s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. While that reconsideration application was pending, the Sheriff executed a warrant of ejectment and Erga was evicted. Erga then urgently approached the High Court, which granted an interdict restoring its possession on the basis that the pending s 17(2)(f) reconsideration suspended execution under s 18(1) of the Act. Hi-Q appealed that order. By the time the appeal was heard, Erga had vacated the premises and no longer occupied them.

The appeal was dismissed on the ground of mootness, with no order as to costs.

The case reaffirms the Supreme Court of Appeal’s approach to mootness under s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act and the principle that appellate courts should not decide abstract or academic issues absent a practical effect. Although the Court declined to decide the substantive question, the judgment highlights the ongoing jurisprudential uncertainty regarding whether s 18(1) applies to reconsideration applications under s 17(2)(f), signalling that the issue remains open for determination in an appropriate future case.