Letters Patent appeal limitation turns on the judgment, not the later formal order, with possible condonation for bona fide mistake.

A Letters Patent appeal lies against the judgment of the single judge under clause 15, not against the formal ministerial order later drawn up under the High Court Rules. Filing the memorandum with a copy of the judgment constitutes substantial compliance, so the appeal cannot await the certified order as a matter of requirement. On that basis, the appeal was beyond limitation. However, where the appellants acted under a bona fide but mistaken belief that the certified order was necessary, they were to be given an opportunity to seek condonation of delay before final dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Letters Patent appeal lies against the judgment of a learned single judge rather than against the formal order drawn up in terms of the High Court Rules, and whether the present appeal was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appeal is directed against the judgment of the single judge, not against the ministerial order subsequently drawn up under the procedural rules. The drawing up of such an order is only a formality, and for a Letters Patent appeal it is sufficient substantial compliance if the memorandum is accompanied by a copy of the judgment. On that footing, the appeal was beyond limitation. At the same time, the appellants were found to have proceeded under a bona fide but mistaken belief that the appeal could not be filed without the certified order, and the Court considered that they should be given an opportunity to seek condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be patently time-barred, but the appellants were granted an opportunity to apply for condonation of delay before any final dismissal.

---