Appeal of ex-SAA boss struck from roll

2012-09-19 11:04

An appeal by former SAA boss Khaya Ngqula about legal action on two claims against him has been struck off the roll by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The SCA held that Ngqula should pay the costs of the case, including the costs of two legal counsel.

The former SA Airways (SAA) CEO had appealed against a ruling by the South Gauteng High Court, which directed that two SAA claims against him, to the amount of about R27 million, be heard in the North Gauteng High Court.

SAA filed papers in the South Gauteng High Court, submitting that the claims were not related to Ngqula’s employment contract, which stipulated that court proceedings against the two parties be instituted in the Pretoria court district.

Ngqula objected to the Johannesburg proceedings and SAA applied for a transfer of the case to Pretoria, to prevent a delay on the grounds of the court’s jurisdiction.

South Gauteng High Court Judge Nazeer Cassim found for SAA.

The high court held a jurisdictional challenge had consequences of an avoidance of a debate on whether public funds were appropriately used.

It was in the interest of justice that the case be transferred to the Pretoria court.

Ngqula objected, submitting that the South Gauteng High Court did not have the jurisdiction to make a transfer decision and that his prospects of a plea of prescription would be violated.

The unanimous judgment by Judges Jonathan Heher, Visvanathan Ponnan and Malcolm Wallis held that the lower court’s decision should not be appealed.

The judges found an appeal had to, among other things, lead to a more expeditious and cost-effective determination of the main dispute between the parties. It held that the Ngqula appeal was in direct opposition to this principle.

The judges also found the high court’s order was a practical pretrial direction, intended to overcome a technical objection to help the parties come to terms with the real dispute.

They held that Ngqula employed the appeal proceedings in an attempt to avoid a determination of the merits.

The SCA further held that the high court ruling did not dispose of any portion of relief claimed in the main proceedings.

Ngqula’s counsel argued that a plea of prescription could now be only an academic exercise.

A prescription plea means SAA took too long – more than three years – to pursue the claims and they should therefore fall away.

The SCA judgment held that this argument was wrong.

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.