In Brief
This case concerns whether the High Court properly allowed an appeal by non-party transferees (subsequent purchasers) of land sold during ongoing litigation, by condoning their 586-day delay in filing the appeal. The original owners sold the disputed 42-acre property to the plaintiffs under an agreement; the defendant later sold it to a third party who resold 4 acres to the respondents—all while a suit for specific performance was pending and injunctions were in effect. The respondents' request to join as defendants was rejected, then they sought leave to appeal the judgment against their vendor, claiming their vendor had colluded with the plaintiff and failed to defend. The Supreme Court held the High Court's order unsustainable: while transferees pendente lite may seek leave to appeal, such leave must be judicially exercised. Here, the 586-day delay lacked sufficient cause, and the respondents failed to demonstrate vigilance in protecting their rights. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's order set aside."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.