About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 711
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Storm Crossingham v Higgins (A066931/2025) [2026] ZAGPJHC 711 (23 April 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: A066931/2025
DATE
:
23.04.2026
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES:NO
(3) REVISED
In the matter between
STORM
CROSSINGHAM
Appellant
and
PAUL
HIGGINS
Respondent
JUDGMENT
CRUTCHFIELD J with whom MOTHA J
concurs
This is a Full
Bench appeal that comes before us for hearing on 23 April 2026.
The appellant
received notification from the office of the registrar as long ago as
19 March 2026, advising that the matter would
be heard in this court
on 23 April 2026. Counsel was duly briefed by the appellant and
at some stage counsel advised of his
or her unavailability to proceed
with the matter on 23 April 2026.
Discussions ensued
between the appellant’s legal representatives and those of the
respondent in respect of the appeal being
heard by this court during
the week of 20 April 2023, but on a date other than 23 April
2026. Correspondence was sent
to my office making the request,
but the roll this week is full and it was not possible and it remains
not possible to accommodate
these parties on a date other than 23
April 2026.
I mention in this
regard that the alternate dates proposed by the appellant were not
suitable to the respondent’s legal representatives
and
accordingly the matter remained on the roll for 23 April 2026.
Notwithstanding the
appellant’s legal representatives being well aware that their
counsel was unavailable to proceed on 23
April 2026, no efforts were
made by them to procure alternate counsel available on the relevant
date and to deal with the matter.
I mention in this
regard that there is a plethora of counsel at the Johannesburg Bar
and also the Pretoria Bar who are more than
well experienced and
properly equipped to deal with a matter of this nature.
Notwithstanding, the appellant’s legal
representatives, without
discussion with the respondent's legal representatives, saw fit on 21
April 2026, two days before the
date on which the matter was set down
to be heard on 23 April 2026, to upload on CaseLines a
unilateral notice of removal.
As already stated, this was done
without discussion with the respondent’s legal representatives
and furthermore, without
a tender for the wasted costs by the
appellant to the respondent.
Not only is such
conduct grossly disrespectful of the respondent, it also amounts to
an abuse of this court’s process and
procedure, in that the
practice manual specifically states that matters may not be removed
from the roll unilaterally by the parties,
but only by permission of
the office of the Deputy Judge President, or on request to this
court.
No such request was
made to the office of the Deputy Judge President. On 20 April 2026,
when it came to my attention that the notice
had been uploaded, the
parties were informed that the matter remained on the roll pending
permission for the removal been granted
by the office of the Acting
Deputy Judge President of this Division. No such permission was
forthcoming and a request for
the removal was made to this Court at
the hearing 23 April 2026.
The respondent is
clear that it is ready to proceed with the appeal. The necessary
preparation has been done and the respondent
is amenable to
proceeding with the appeal on 23 April 2026. The appellant
essentially puts up a plea
ad
misericordiam
that their counsel is
available and that the attorney tasked with dealing with the appeal
this morning is not in a position to do
so and that the appellant
will be prejudiced if we insist that the parties proceed.
My concern with
that argument is that the prejudice is not caused by the court
forcing the matter to proceed, but by the appellant’s
legal
representatives’ stance in this matter and the manner in which
they have conducted the proceedings.
The only prejudice
to the respondent if we order that the matter be removed from the
roll is that the respondent is deprived of
an opportunity to finalise
the litigation and costs. The costs obviously can be dealt with
by way of a tailored costs order.
The order that was granted in
the Magistrate’s Court remains in place notwithstanding that it
would be placed on hold in
the light of the appeal. However, I
am informed from the Bar that currently peace prevails between the
parties. Hopefully
that peace will continue.
In the
circumstances, and in an attempt not to prejudice the appellant
notwithstanding the conduct of his attorneys’ conduct
in this
matter, we are of the view that a removal of the matter from the roll
can be accommodated at this stage, but it must come
with an
appropriate and suitably punitive costs order against the appellant.
In circumstances,
the following order will issue;
(1) The matter
is removed from the roll.
(2) The
appellant is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the
removal, including the costs of counsel
on scale C.
I hand down the judgment.
CRUTCHFIELD, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
23 April 2026.