Summary

Interim Interdict- Preventing execution and enforcement of default judgment- Pending application for rescission- rule nisi discharged-appealability of order.

The main issue which the court a quo had to decide was entitlement or otherwise of the respondent to keep both the merx and the purchase price upon cancellation of the agreement of sale in respect of the 220 Crane when appellant had already paid a significant portion of the purchase price. In deciding the said issue the court a quo had also to decide whether a proper basis had been laid for the relief sought, namely the interdicting of the execution and/or enforcement of the default judgment granted on 10 June 2013 and return of the 220 Crane.

Appeal dismissed.

Held: As the merx was sold prior to the hearing of the appeal, the appeal had become academic in terms of section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.

Held: The Court a quo erred in granting leave to appeal against an interlocutory order.

Held: The appellant had failed to prove a prima facie right and was accordingly not entitled to confirmation of the rule nisi.