Mnisi Elvis and Mnisi Philemon v Registrar of Deeds: Pretoria and Others

The First and Second Applicants (the Mnisi family) brought an application relating to their labour tenant claim. On 17 June 2025, the Land Court granted an interim order directing: (1) the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development to finalise the applicants' labour tenant claim within 30 court days; (2) the Registrar of Deeds to register a caveat over Portion 5 of Komatidraai 417 JT restricting transfer, alienation or encumbrance pending finalisation of the claim; (3) the Twelfth Respondent to permit the applicants to access the property for grazing 27 head of cattle pending finalisation of their claim; and (4) no order as to costs. The Twelfth Respondent and the Fourth and Sixth Respondents (state parties) subsequently sought leave to appeal against this order. By the time the leave to appeal application was heard on 25 July 2025, the 30-day period had already elapsed.

• Whether the interim order of 17 June 2025 was appealable under the Zweni test
• Whether the order was final in effect and definitive of the parties' rights
• Whether the interests of justice required granting leave to appeal despite the interim nature of the order
• Whether mootness (due to lapse of the 30-day period) barred the appeal
• Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify deviation from the general rule against appeals of interim interdicts

The applications for leave to appeal by the Twelfth Respondent and the Fourth and Sixth Respondents were dismissed. There was no order as to costs.

An interim order that is explicitly temporary in nature, does not finally determine rights, and is aimed solely at preserving the integrity of a statutory process pending final adjudication, is not appealable under the Zweni test as it lacks the required finality and definitiveness. While the interests of justice may permit appeals of interim orders in exceptional circumstances, no such exception applies where the order is modest, time-limited, the time period has elapsed rendering the matter moot, and no exceptional prejudice, procedural injustice, conflicting judgments, or broader jurisprudential significance is demonstrated. An appeal cannot be used as a mechanism to vary an order by introducing new evidence; where a party cannot comply with an order, procedural mechanisms other than appeal must be utilized.

The court observed that the original interim order was "modest" in nature, as it did not strip the Twelfth Respondent of land rights or occupation but merely imposed a temporary burden while protecting the applicants' right to fair consideration of their claims. The court noted that the order allowed grazing access for 27 head of cattle and included only a temporary caveat, demonstrating the limited scope of the interim relief. The court also commented that the 30-day timeframe was based on submissions by counsel during the original hearing that this was the period the Department required to finalise the claim. While acknowledging that mootness is not an absolute bar to justiciability and that courts have discretionary power to entertain moot issues where the interests of justice require, the court observed this was not a case involving conflicting judgments or any of the six Normandien Farms factors that would warrant entertaining a moot matter.

This judgment reinforces the principle that interim orders, particularly those of a temporary and procedural nature, are generally not appealable unless exceptional circumstances exist. It applies and clarifies the Zweni test in the context of land reform and labour tenancy matters, emphasizing that even in constitutionally significant areas, the nature of the order (interim vs final) remains determinative of appealability. The case also illustrates the limited scope of appeals and confirms that parties cannot use the appeal mechanism to introduce new evidence or effectively seek variation of orders. It provides guidance on when mootness will bar an appeal in the absence of factors such as conflicting judgments or broader jurisprudential significance.