And
KING PRICE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondent
(Registration Number: 2009/012496/06)
In re: Action proceedings in the Magistrates Court,
Germiston SB-Division of Ekurhuleni Central- held
At Germiston- Case No: 2750/2020
MATUBA TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS CC Plaintiff
And
KP BARRON First Defendant
MARTIN BOYLE Second Defendant
KING PRICE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Third Defendant
(Registration Number: 2019/012496/06)
This Judgment was handed down electroni cally and by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by way of email and shall be uploaded on caselines. The date for hand
down is deemed to be on 31 July 2025.
_____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
MALI J
et
NKOENYANE AJ
[1] On 31 July 2025 this court sitting as the Full Bench in the appeal by Matuba
Transport Logistics CC ( Matuba) against King Price Insuran ce Company Limited
( King Price) granted an ex temporae judgment. King Price applied for the
declaration for the lapsing of Matuba’s appeal, consequently the dismissal of the
appeal. The court granted the judgment as follows:
[2] This is an application by the applicant (The Defendant in the main action) to declare
the lapsing of the respondent’s appeal (the Plaintiff in the main action).
[3] The respondent filed a counter application for the reinstatement of the appeal.
[4] It is common cause that the appeal has been delayed by a period of 149 days, a
period way more than the 60 days as prescribed in the rules of this court.
[5] The applicant’s case is that the appeal has lapsed since the respondent did not
take further steps after filing the notice to appeal, to prosecute the appeal.
[6] The respondent’s argument was mainly on the efforts it made to settle the matter
( appeal) after the judgment of the court a quo had been granted. Those efforts
were not welcomed by the applicant. The respondent persuaded the court to take
into account that it took some action. The prosecution of appeal is extremely
delayed without any substantial reasons.
[7] Having regard to the above, applicant’s application must succeed.
Counter-Application
[8] Respondent filed a counter application for the reinstatement of the appeal. The
affidavit which also served as an answering affidavit to the application for lapsing