King Prince Insurance Company Limited v Matuba Transport and Logistics CC (A050244/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 866 (31 July 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 866 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## King Prince Insurance Company Limited v Matuba Transport and Logistics CC (A050244/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 866 (31 July 2025) King Prince Insurance Company Limited v Matuba Transport and Logistics CC (A050244/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 866 (31 July 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_866.html sino date 31 July 2025 # REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: A050244/2023 DOH:   31-07-2025 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 31/07/2025 In the matter between: KING PRINCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED     Applicant/ Respondent (Registration number: 2009/012496/06) And MATUBA TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS CC                 Respondent / Appellant In Re: Appeal from Magistrate’s Court MATUBA TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS CC                 Appellant And KING PRINCE 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 Defendan KING PRICE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED        Third Defendant (Registration Number: 2019/012496/06) This Judgment was handed down electronically 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 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 Insurance 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 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 of the appeal did not contain reasons or explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal. [9] There are no submissions made pertaining to the prospects of success. The submissions are replete with efforts of the respondent in trying to settle the matter. This is after the judgment of the court aquo and also subsequent to the filing of the notice for leave to appeal. The respondent’s approach has no legal basis. [10] In essence, in the respondent’s counter application the respondent did not apply for condonation and neither it made a substantive application referring to prospects of success as enjoined by the rules. [11] In the result, the counter application must fail. The following order is made: ## Order Order 1. The respondent’s appeal had lapsed. 2. The respondent’s counter application for reinstatement of the appeal is dismissed. 3. The appeal is dismissed. 4. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of both the applications as well as the appeal, on the scale as between attorney and client. NP MALI Judge of the High Court Johannesburg I agree N NKOENYANE Acting Judge of the High Court Johannesburg Appearances: Counsel for the Applicant Adv Johan Prinsloo Instructed by: Weavind & Weavind Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyances Email: nic@weavind.co.za / jj@weavind.co.za / jan@weavind.co.za Tel: 012 346 3098 Counsel for the Respondent: Adv TC Kwinda (Duma Nokwe Group) Instructed by: Makhafola & Verster Incorporated Email: sello@makhafolav.co.za Tel: 087 109 1754 Date of Hearing: 31 July 2025 Date of Judgment: 31 July 2025 sino noindex make_database footer start