THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Reportable
Case No: 1214/2019
In the matter between:

THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NORTH WEST
GAMBLING BOARD
First Appellant
THE NORTH WEST GAMBLING BOARD
Second Appellant
and
SUN INTERNATIONAL (SA) LIMITED
Respondent

Neutral citation:
The Chairperson of the North West Gambling Board & Another v
Sun International (SA) Limited (1214/2019) [2021] ZASCA 176
(14 December 2021)

Coram:
VAN DER MERWE, SCHIPPERS and MBATHA JJA and
PHATSHOANE and WEINER AJJA

Delivered:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives via email, publication on the Supreme Court of
Appeal website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down
is deemed to be 10h00 on 14 December 2021.

Summary:
Appeal – condonation for late filing of appeal record and reinstatement
of appeal and condonation for late filing of heads of argument – prospects of success
assumed – whether good cause shown – dilatory conduct of the appellants – failure
to explain blatant disregard of rules and inordinate delays – condonation and
reinstatement refused.

ORDER
On appeal from: The North West Division of the High Court (Gutta J sitting as a court
of first instance)
The application for condonation for the late filing of the record of appeal is
dismissed, with no order as to costs.
The application for condonation for the late filing of the appellants’ heads of
argument is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
The main matter is struck from the roll with costs.
JUDGMENT
Weiner AJA (Van Der Merwe, Schippers and Mbatha JJA and Phatshoane AJA
concurring)
Introduction
[1] After hearing counsel for the appellants on 5 November 2021, we made the
order set out above and indicated that reasons for the order would follow. These are
the reasons.

[2] The appellants, the Chairperson of the North West Gambling Board and the
North West Gambling Board (herein collectively referred to as the Board) and the
respondent, Sun International (SA) Limited (herein referred to as SISA), were in
dispute over whether Free Play, which was a credit given by SISA to its most valuable
customers, ought to be included or excluded from the calculation of gross gaming
revenue. This issue has a bearing on the calculation of the correct amount of levy
which a casino was obliged to pay for the benefit of the provincial revenue fund. SISA’s
view was that such credits ought to be excluded, whilst the Board’s view was that they

should be included. The North West High Court (Gutta AJ) found in favour of SISA.
The Board brought this appeal with the leave of the court a quo.

[3] Before this Court were two applications for condonation brought by the Board.
They related, firstly, to its failure to file the record of appeal timeously, and secondly,
to the late filing of the heads of argument, practice note and certificate (the heads of
argument), in terms of Rule 10 of this Court’s Rules (the Rules), six months after they
were due. It was common cause that the appeal had lapsed upon the failure of the
Board to file the record on the extended date of 14 April 2020. The Board thus sought
condonation in respect of both breaches of the Rules, as well as the reinstatement of
its appeal. SISA initially opposed the applications for condonation and the
reinstatement of the appeal. It withdrew its opposition shortly before the hearing. This
did not, of course, relieve the Board of the duty to make out a proper case for
condonation and reinstatement.

The applicable Rules
[4] In terms of Rule 8(1) of this Court’s Rules, an appellant is required to lodge with
this Court’s Registrar (the Registrar) six copies of the record of the proceedings in the
court below within three months of the lodging of the notice of appeal. In terms of Rule
8(2), this period may be extended either by the written agreement of the parties or by
the Registrar following a request by the appellant, with notice of the request being
given to the other parties. Rule 8(3) provides that if the record is not lodged within the
period prescribed by Rule 8(1), or an extended period in terms of Rule 8(2), the appeal
shall lapse.

[5] Rule 10 provides that heads of argument must be filed within six weeks from
the lodging of the record; if the appellant fails to lodge heads of argument within the
prescribed period or within the extended period, the appeal shall lapse.

The late filing of the appeal record
[6] In order to properly assess the Board’s submissions regarding the delays and
its failure to comply with the Rules, it was necessary to traverse the chronology of

events in this matter. The Board’s attorney, Ms Makhetha, of Maponya Inc,
Bloemfontein, deposed to the Board’s application for condonation.

[7] The judgment of Gutta AJ was delivered on 25 May 2018. The application for
leave to appeal should have been filed by 15 June 2018. The Board did not file such
application by that date, nor did they seek an extension. The application for leave to
appeal was only lodged on 12 July 2018, with an application for condonation. The
condonation application and application for leave to appeal were set down for hearing
on 31 May 2019. However, on that day, the Board brought an application seeking a
postponement of the application for leave to appeal, which was granted, with an order
that the Board was to file a replying affidavit by 17 June 2019 and heads of argument
by 15 July 2019. The replying affidavit was filed a day late, and the heads of argument
were filed three days late.

[8] On 25 October 2019, condonation and leave to appeal were granted by the
court a quo. The Board served its notice of appeal on 13 November 2019. On 14
November 2019, the Registrar sent a letter to the Board, stating that the record was
to be lodged by 13 March 2020.

[9] Mr Baloyi, the instructing attorney at Maponya Inc in Mahikeng, had arranged
to courier the record to Bloemfontein on 11 March 2020. The documents were,
however, only received on 13 March 2020. Ms Makhetha stated in a letter to the
Registrar that due to this delay, the attorneys were unable to bind and deliver the
record to the court timeously. She, however, stated that the record had been served
on SISA’s attorney.1 However, on 13 March 2020, when she went to the court with
copies of the record, they were not in order, as several documents were missing. Mr
Baloyi addressed a letter to SISA requesting an extension until 27 March 2020. On 14
March 2020, he also sought a 30-day extension from the Registrar. On 16 March 2020,
the Registrar granted an extension until 14 April 2020 for the record to be filed, failing
which the appeal would lapse.

1 It appears that the record was only served on SISA’s attorneys on 19 May 2020. This discrepancy is
not explained in the affidavit.

[10] In the application for condonation, Ms Makhetha stated that the Covid-19
lockdown, which was announced on 23 March 2020 and commenced on 26 March
2020, made it impossible to travel over provincial boundaries. This explanation was
unconvincing, as Ms Makhetha was based in Bloemfontein and did not have to travel
over any provincial boundaries. The Board and its attorney did nothing to enquire
whether or not the record could be filed, despite the lockdown; they simply disobeyed
the Rules, without seeking a further extension or communicating with SISA or the
Registrar. The record was not filed on 14 April 2020. No correspondence in this regard
was addressed to the Registrar or SISA’s attorneys either before or after this date.

[11] On 23 April 2020, SISA’s attorney enquired from Mr Baloyi whether the record
had been filed, as ten days had lapsed from the extended date upon which the record
was to be filed, with no correspondence from the Board. In response, on 24 April 2020,
Mr Baloyi explained that it was impossible to file the record because of the lockdown,
which had commenced on 23 March 2020.

[12] On 29 April 2020, SISA’s attorneys addressed a letter to the Registrar
requesting confirmation that the appeal had lapsed as the record had not been filed.
The Registrar confirmed, to the attorneys, that no communication in respect of the
filing of the record had been received and that the Registrar’s office had been open
for the duration of the lockdown to receive all documents in hard copy or electronically.
The appeal had accordingly lapsed.

[13] Level 4 lockdown was announced on 3 May 2020. On the following day, the
record was filed, but there was no application for condonation. The Board’s attorneys
stated that an application for condonation in respect of the filing of the record would
be filed before 21 May 2020 and it did so. SISA opposed the application and the
opposing affidavit was filed on 22 June 2020.

Late filing of the heads of argument
[14] The Board, for some reason, stated that the heads of argument were due to be
filed on 3 July 2020. But the record had finally been filed on 4 May 2020, and the heads
of argument were thus due six weeks after the record was filed, being 15 June 2020.

In any event, both 15 June 2020 and 3 July 2020 came and went – no heads of
argument were filed. No extension was applied for. In September 2020, Ms Makhetha
was informed by the Registrar that the appeal had lapsed on 14 April 2020. Ms
Makhetha did not respond.

[15] Other than the filing of the record and the application for condonation for its late
filing, on 4 May 2020, nothing further was heard from Ms Makhetha, Mr Baloyi or the
Board, until 21 December 2020 – some seven months later – when the heads of
argument and the further application for condonation were filed. SISA filed an
answering affidavit to the second condonation application on 16 February 2021.

[16] In an attempt to explain this disregard of the Rules, and its failure to
communicate its intentions (despite the appeal having lapsed), Ms Makhetha stated
that the reason for not further prosecuting the appeal at the time was that a Full Court
of the Western Cape had pronounced on a similar matter against the Western Cape
Gambling and Racing Board on 29 April 2020. There were also judgments handed
down in similar matters in the Eastern Cape and Northern Cape (22 September 2017),
which found against the respective Boards.

[17] The Board, it was said, wanted to discuss these judgments and the way forward
with the other Boards involved. No detail was given of these discussions. The Court
was not informed what the discussions concerned, who took part in the discussions,
and the result of such discussions. No confirmatory affidavits were tendered by the
participants to these discussions. It, however, appeared from the application that a
decision had been made (on an undisclosed date) that the Western Cape and Eastern
Cape Boards would also apply for leave to appeal against the judgments granted
against them. It was contemplated that if leave was granted in the Western Cape
matter, that case and the present one would be consolidated.2

2 Leave to appeal was granted in the Western Cape Matter on 22 October 2021. An application by the
Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board to intervene in the present appeal was filed in this Court on
29 October 2021. Such application was dealt with at the hearing of this matter and dismissed by this
Court.

[18] Ms Makhetha stated that she had monitored the progress of the Western Cape
matter, but decided to hold the present matter in abeyance. For five months, the Board
did nothing. It did not inform the Registrar or SISA of its unilateral decision to hold the
matter in abeyance. It did not ask for an extension based upon this reasoning that
there should be a consolidation of the matters in this Court. However, as the judgment
had still not been handed down in the application for leave to appeal in the Western
Cape matter by 20 November 2020, the Board instructed Ms Makhetha that the heads
of argument and other documents required for the appeal should be filed. There was
no explanation as to precisely what Ms Makhetha or the Board did, in these five
months, other than to decide on or about 20 November that the heads of argument be
filed.

[19] The unilateral decision by the Board to place this matter on hold whilst it was
deliberating what to do, without communicating with SISA or the Registrar, was
unacceptable. To further aggravate its conduct, despite being informed by the
Registrar in September 2020 that the appeal had lapsed on 14 April 2020, the Board
did not even consider requesting an extension or seeking condonation for the late filing
of the heads of argument. As stated above, the heads of argument and application for
condonation were only filed on 21 December 2020. Thus, another unexplained delay
of a month occurred. This cavalier attitude cannot be countenanced.

Applicable legal principles
[20] Rule 12 makes provision for applications for condonation in the event of non-
compliance with the Rules. It is trite that in applications for condonation and
reinstatement:
‘(a)
The applicant must provide a proper explanation of the causes of the delay and explain
each of the periods of delay.3
(b)
It is not sufficient for an applicant to set out a ‘number of generalised causes without
any attempt to relate them to the time-frame of its default or to enlighten the court as

3 SA Express Ltd v Bagport (Pty) Ltd  [2020] ZASCA 13; 2020 (5) SA 404 (SCA); [2020] JOL 47309
(SCA) para 34; Van Wyk v Unitas Hospital and Another (Open Democratic Advice Centre as amicus
curiae) [2007] ZACC 24; 2008 (2) SA 472 (CC); 2008 (4) BCLR 442 (CC) para 22; Laerskool Generaal
Hendrik Schoeman v Bastian Financial Services (Pty) Ltd [2009] ZACC 12; 2009 (10) BCLR 1040 (CC);
[2009] JOL 23546 (CC); 2012 (2) SA 637 (CC) para 15.

to the materiality and effectiveness of any steps taken by the Board’s legal
representatives to achieve compliance with the Rules at the earliest reasonable
opportunity.4
(c)
The court has a discretion which the applicant must show should be exercised in its
favour.’

[21] In order to obtain condonation, several factors come into play. As Ponnan JA
stated in Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining and Development
Company Ltd and Others,5 such factors:
‘…include the degree of non-compliance, the explanation therefor, the importance of the case,
a respondent’s interest in the finality of the judgment of the court below, the convenience of
this court and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice (per Holmes
JA in Federated Employers Fire & General Insurance Co Ltd & another v McKenzie 1969 (3)
SA 360 (A) at 362F-G).’

[22] In the present case, the major delay can be laid at the door of the Board itself.
And it is in any event responsible for the delay caused by its attorneys. In Saloojee
and Another, NNO v Minister of Community Development,6 after considering the
explanation given for the delay, and concluding that it was not even ‘remotely
satisfactory’, Steyn CJ held:
‘I should point out, however, that it has not at any time been held that condonation will not in
any circumstances be withheld if the blame lies with the attorney. There is a limit beyond which
a litigant cannot escape the results of his attorney's lack of diligence or the insufficiency of the
explanation tendered. To hold otherwise might have a disastrous effect upon the observance
of the Rules of this Court.’7

[23] In SA Express Ltd v Bagport (Pty) Ltd,8 Plasket JA referred to various
authorities dealing with this issue. He cited Plewman JA’s comments in Darries v
Sheriff, Magistrate’s Court, Wynberg and Another,9 where it was stated:

4 Uitenhage Transitional Local Council v South African Revenue Service  [2003] 4 All SA 37 (SCA);
[2003] JOL 11450 (SCA); 2004 (1) SA 292 (SCA) para 7.
5 Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Ltd and
Others [2013] ZASCA 5; [2013] JOL 30158 (SCA); [2013] 2 All SA 251 (SCA) para 11.
6 Saloojee and Another, NNO v Minister of Community Development 1965 (2) SA 135 (A); [1965] 1 All
SA 521 (A).
7 Ibid at 140H and 141B-C.
8 SA Express Ltd v Bagport (Pty) Ltd  (note 3 above)
9 Darries v Sheriff, Magistrate’s Court, Wynberg and Another 1998 (3) SA 34 (SCA) at 40I-41E, cited in
SA Express (note 3 above) para 14. (References omitted.)

‘Condonation of the non-observance of the Rules of this Court is not a mere formality. In all
cases, some acceptable explanation, not only of, for example, the delay in noting an appeal.
. . . must be given. Nor should it simply be assumed that, where non-compliance was due
entirely to the neglect of the appellant’s attorney, condonation will be granted. In applications
of this sort the applicant’s prospects of success are in general an important though not decisive
consideration.  When application is made for condonation it is advisable that the petition
should set forth briefly and succinctly such essential information as may enable the Court to
assess the appellant’s prospects of success. But appellant’s prospect of success is but one of
the factors relevant to the exercise of the Court’s discretion, unless the cumulative effect of
the other relevant factors in the case is such as to render the application for condonation
obviously unworthy of consideration. Where non-observance of the Rules has been flagrant
and gross an application for condonation should not be granted, whatever the prospects of
success might be.’

[24] The Board contended that the prospects of success in the appeal were good,
and therefore, the delays occasioned in the filing of the record and heads of argument
should be condoned, and the appeal should be re-instated. We were prepared to
accept that the Board had prospects of success with the appeal. However, as set out
above, condonation has been refused even in circumstances where the prospects of
success might be good, but the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and
displayed a flagrant disregard for the Rules.

[25] In Madinda v Minister of Safety and Security,10 this Court, in dealing with the
balance required when considering the explanation for the delay and the prospects of
success, stated that:
‘. . . In addition, that the merits are shown to be strong or weak may colour an applicant’s
explanation for conduct which bears on the delay: an applicant with an overwhelming case is
hardly likely to be careless in pursuing his or her interest, while one with little hope of success
can easily be understood to drag his or her heels. . . .’11

10 Madinda v Minister of Safety and Security [2008] ZASCA 34; [2008] 3 All SA 143 (SCA); 2008 (4) SA
312 (SCA).
11 Ibid para 12.

[26] This statement applies equally in the present case. The Board had simply been
careless and lackadaisical in its approach to this appeal. Assuming that the Board had
good prospects on appeal, the following dictum applied: ‘Where non-observance of
the Rules has been flagrant and gross an application for condonation should not be
granted, whatever the prospects of success might be’.12

Delay in applying for condonation
[27] The Board’s dilatory conduct was exacerbated by its failure to apply for
condonation as soon as reasonably possible. It waited until 21 December 2020 to file
such an application. This again demonstrated the brazen disregard of the Rules. In
Mulaudzi v Old Mutual Life Assurance Co (South Africa) Ltd,13 this Court dealt with the
issue as follows:
‘What calls for an explanation is not only the delay in the timeous prosecution of the appeal,
but also the delay in seeking condonation. An appellant should, whenever he realises that he
has not complied with a rule of this court, apply for condonation without delay. A full, detailed
and accurate account of the causes of the delay and their effects must be furnished so as to
enable the court to understand clearly the reasons and to assess the responsibility. . . .’

[28] Similarly, in SA Express,14 Plasket JA, confirmed that ‘[a]n appellant should,
whenever he realises that he has not complied with a Rule of Court apply for
condonation as soon as possible.’

[29] In view of SISA’s withdrawal of its opposition to these applications for
condonation, it was not necessary to deal with the manner in which the delays may
have prejudiced it. However, there were other issues to consider, as stated by this
Court in Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Van der Merwe:15
‘. . . Not only is the conduct of the applicant prejudicial to a party in the position of SARS – the
applicant first failed to lodge a notice of appeal in the High Court in time and then repeated
that remissness before this court - but to tolerate the type of conduct encountered here would

12 Darries (note 9 above).
13 Mulaudzi v Old Mutual Life Assurance Co (South Africa) Ltd and Others [2017] ZASCA 88; [2017] 3
All SA 520 (SCA); 2017 (6) SA 90 (SCA) para 26. (References omitted.)
14 SA Express (note 3 above)  para 14.
15 Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Van der Merwe [2015] ZASCA 86; 2016 (1) SA 599
(SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 387 (SCA) para 18. (References omitted.)

be prejudicial to the administration of justice, the integrity of any appeal process and the
functioning of our highest courts of appeal.’

Conclusion
[30] Having accepted that there might be prospects of success, the question
remained whether the Board had provided a convincing and adequate explanation for
its non-compliance with this Court’s Rules. This must be answered in the negative.

[31] The Board blatantly failed to comply with the Rules of Court in virtually every
instance. It was late in seeking leave to appeal from the High Court. It was late in
seeking a postponement of the application for leave to appeal. It was late in filing its
heads of argument and replying affidavit in the application for condonation before the
High Court. It was two months late in filing the record of appeal in this Court, and the
record was still incomplete. It was, furthermore, six months late in filing its heads of
argument and application for condonation in this Court. Its explanations for each of
these delays were wholly unsatisfactory. The Board displayed a blatant disregard for
the Rules of this Court and the administration of justice. The Board’s lackadaisical way
in dealing with this matter had to be dealt with in a manner that demonstrated  that
condonation was not just for the asking. The Board flagrantly breached the Rules in
such a manner and on so many occasions that this Court could not grant condonation
and reinstatement of the appeal.

[32] For these reasons we granted the order set out at the commencement of this
judgment.

_____________________________
S E WEINER
ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances:
For appellant:

J De Waal SC
Instructed by:

Maponya Inc., Bloemfontein

For respondent:
A Cockrell SC (with him N Ferreira)
Instructed by:
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc., Johannesburg

Webbers Attorneys, Bloemfontein

SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

14 December 2021

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form
part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The Chairperson of the North West Gambling Board & 1 Other v Sun
International (SA) Ltd (1214/2019) [2021] ZASCA 176 (14 December 2021)
___________________________________________________________________

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) gave reasons for the order which it made
on 5 November 2021. On that day, the Court dismissed the appellants’ applications
for condonation for the late filing of the record of appeal and the application for the late
filing of the heads of argument. The main matter was struck off the roll with costs.
The merits of the appeal concerned a dispute between the appellants, the Chairperson
of the North West Gambling Board and the North West Gambling Board and the
respondent, Sun International (SA) Limited over whether Free Play, which was a credit
given by the respondent to its most valuable customers, ought to be included or
excluded from the calculation of gross gaming revenue. The appeal was against the
order of the North West Division of the High Court, which had found that the Free Play
credit should be excluded from the calculation of gross gaming revenue.
The Court had first to decide on two applications for condonation brought by the
appellants. They related, firstly, to their failure to file the record of appeal timeously,
and secondly, to the late filing of the heads of argument, practice note and certificate
in terms of Rule 10 of the SCA’s Rules (the Rules), six months after they were due. It

was common cause that the appeal had lapsed upon the failure of the appellants to
file the record on the extended date of 14 April 2020. The appellants thus sought
condonation in respect of both breaches of the Rules, as well as the reinstatement of
the appeal.

In terms of Rule 8(1) of the Rules, an appellant is required to lodge with the Registrar
six copies of the record of the proceedings in the court below within three months of
the lodging of the notice of appeal. Rule 8(3) provides that if the record is not lodged
within the period prescribed by Rule 8(1), or an extended period in terms of Rule 8(2),
the appeal shall lapse.

Rule 10 provides that heads of argument must be filed within six weeks from the
lodging of the record; if the appellant fails to lodge heads of argument within the
prescribed period or within the extended period, the appeal shall lapse.

The appellants served their notice of appeal on 13 November 2019. The appeal record
was thus required to be lodged by 13 March 2020. The appellants’ attorney stated
that, although they had arranged for the documents to be couriered to Bloemfontein
on 11 March 2020, they were only received on 13 March 2020. The attorneys were
unable to bind and deliver the record to the court timeously. The Registrar granted an
extension until 14 April 2020 for the record to be filed, failing which the appeal would
lapse.

The appellants’ attorney then referred to the Covid-19 lockdown, which was
announced on 23 March 2020 and commenced on 26 March 2020, which made it
impossible to travel over provincial boundaries, in order to file the record. This
explanation was unconvincing, as Ms Makhetha was based in Bloemfontein and did
not have to travel over any provincial boundaries and the office of the Registrar was
open throughout this period.

Level 4 lockdown was announced on 3 May 2020. On the following day, the record
was filed, but there was no application for condonation. The application for
condonation for the late filing of the record was filed on 21 May 2020.  No further

communication was addressed to the respondent or the Registrar, who informed the
appellants’ attorney in September 2020 that the appeal had lapsed.

On 21 December 2020 – some seven months after the application for condonation
was filed - the heads of argument and the further application for condonation were
filed. The appellants’ attorneys claimed that they had held the matter in abeyance as
there were similar matters in other courts (all of which had found against the
appellants), including a matter in the Western Cape High Court. They were waiting for
the leave to appeal application to be decided upon in the Western Cape matter, which
they believed, if granted, should be heard together with the present matter. The
appellants’ attorneys did not inform the Registrar or the respondent of its unilateral
decision to hold the matter in abeyance. It did not ask for an extension based upon
this reasoning that there should be a consolidation of the matters in this Court.
The court discussed the various factors that come into play in order to obtain
condonation. These include ‘the degree of non-compliance, the explanation therefor,
the importance of the case, a respondent’s interest in the finality of the judgment of
the court below, the convenience of this court and the avoidance of unnecessary delay
in the administration of justice’ (per Ponnan JA in Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v
Southern Sphere Mining and Development Company Ltd and Others [2013] ZASCA
5; [2013] 2 All SA 251 (SCA) para 11.

The appellants’ dilatory conduct was exacerbated by its failure to apply for
condonation as soon as reasonably possible. It waited until 21 December 2020 to file
such an application.

The appellants blatantly failed to comply with the Rules of Court in virtually every
instance. They were late in seeking leave to appeal from the High Court, in seeking a
postponement of the application for leave to appeal, in filing its heads of argument and
a replying affidavit in the application for condonation before the High Court, in filing the
record of appeal in the SCA, and six months late in filing its heads of argument and
application for condonation in this Court. Their explanations for each of these delays
were wholly unsatisfactory. The appellants displayed a blatant disregard for the Rules
and the administration of justice.

The Court held that, even assuming that the appellants had good prospects of success
on appeal, the non-observance of the Rules, on virtually every occasion had been so
flagrant that the applications for condonation should not be granted and the appeal
was struck off the roll with costs.