PIENAAR v. CRONJE.
(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION.)

1972. August 17. CILLIE, J.P., and LUDORF, J.

Appeal.-Presentation of.-Necessity for record .to be certified as correct.-Rule of Court 50 (7) (c).--Failure to comply with Rules of Court. Consequences thereof.

In the presentation of an appeal it is necessary that an attorney or party in terms of Rule of Court 50 (7} (c) certify as correct the record handed in to the Registrar.

In cases where the requirements of the Rules have not been complied with, the Court has a discretion after considering the matter either to strike it off the roll, or postpone it, or even to hear it.

Appeal from a decision in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the judgment.

J. H. Coetzee, for the appellant.
C. D. de Jager, for the respondent.

CILLIE, J.P.: A few mistakes were made in the presentation of this appeal. It appears inter alia that Rule 50 (7) (c) was not complied with. That Rule reads as follows :

"The record shall contain a correct and complete copy of the pleadings, evidence and all other documents necessary for·the hearing of the appeal, together with an index thereof, and the copies lodged with the Registrar shall be certified as correct by the attorney or party lodging the same."

This is the third time in the course of this week that an attorney, or party, has failed to certify as correct the copies lodged with the Registrar. One of the previous cases has been postponed while the other has been struck off the roll. In cases like these where the requirements of the Rules have not been complied with, the Court has a discretion, after considering the matter, either to strike it off the roll, or postpone it, or even to hear it. The Court's attitude depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the case in question.

The following occurred in this case. Each member of the Court received a copy .from the Registrar. It did not appear therefrom whether the copies had been certified as correct by an attorney. Thereupon the Court received a list of appellant's main heads of argument. Both members of the Court perused the copies, i.e. the evidence and the documents, with reference to the heads of argument, which facilitated their task. It appeared to both members that prima facie and before hearing argument .it could not be said that the appeal had no prospects of success. One of the members of the Court wanted to have a look at the original record and was apprised of the fact that it had not been lodged with the Registrar. It later transpired that this was due to an error. All the documents, i.e. the original one as well as the copies, look exactly alike and only one contains the original signature of the person who compiled and typed it; due to an oversight that original document was not filed. It is therefore not treated as a particular circumstance in this case, but it stresses the necessity of complying with the Rules concerning the lodging of copies and of an original record. The members of the Court paid no further attention to the record once they discovered that the copies had not been certified as correct.

In the particular circumstances the Court decided that the appeal appellant to carry the wasted costs. The matter is therefore postponed appellant to carry the wasted costs. The matter is therefore postponed and appellant is to pay the wasted costs.

LUDORF, J., concurred.

Appellant's Attorneys: Moodie & Robertson. Respondent's Attorneys: Meyer, Van Settert &·Kropman.