Neotel (Pty) Ltd v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (Huge Telecom (Pty) Ltd and Another intervening) (605 of 2016) [2017] ZASCA 47 (31 March 2017)

Neotel (Pty) Ltd v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (Huge Telecom (Pty) Ltd and Another intervening) (605 of 2016) [2017] ZASCA 47 (31 March 2017)

Loading PDF...

This document is 70.6 KB. Do you want to load it?

Error loading PDF
Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.
Error:
▲ To the top

Cited documents 12

Judgment
8
Reported
Reported
Reported
Reported

Appealability – interlocutory application – appealable under s 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.

Company law – interpretation of s 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 – provides an unqualified right of access to a company’s securities register – person’s motive for access not relevant – right of access not subject to the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA).

Rule 35(14) – appellants failed to demonstrate that the documents sought are relevant to a reasonably anticipated issue in the main application.

Act
4
Dispute Resolution and Mediation · Human Rights
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
Repealed
Communications and Media · Infrastructure and Transportation

Documents citing this one 16

Judgment
16
Reported

Appeal – jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Appeal to hear appeal from High Court sitting as court of first instance – Section 16(1) of Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 applicable – twofold jurisdictional requirements: that necessary leave to appeal was granted and that order sought to be challenged constitutes ‘decision’ – meaning of ‘decision’ in s 16(1) – same as ‘judgment or order’ under Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 – order certifying class action and declarator in regard to transmissibility of claims for general damages – general attributes for appealability absent – interests of justice not qualifying orders as appealable decisions – matter struck from roll.

Reported

Abandonment of judgment by respondents in terms of Uniform rule 41(2) – no tender of costs – appellant can recover costs by notice in terms of rule 41(1)(c) – costs of appeal – appellant only entitled to costs of appeal up to and including date of abandonment.