On 23 November 1942 SS TILAWA (“the Vessel”) was sunk in the Indian
Ocean by enemy action. On board was a cargo of 2364 bars of silver (“the Silver”) being carried from Bombay to Durban. The Silver belonged to the Union of South Africa, now the Republic of South Africa (“the Government”), the appellant. The Silver had been purchased by the Government for the predominant purpose of being made into coin by the South African mint...

Briefly stated the Solicitors represented the Client in a claim for recovery of personal damages in terms a “conditional fee agreement”. When the Client accepted an offer of settlement the question arose as to the quantification of the amount of fees to which the Solicitors were entitled. When the Client applied to Court for the fees to be subjected to an assessment (in South African terminology “for the bill to be taxed”) the Solicitors submitted that the Client’s application for an assessment was time-barred on grounds set out the applicable procedural rules, which inter alia required the application for assessment to be lodged within 12 months of any payment made the Client to the Solicitor.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in the case of Grancy v Gihwala [2024] ZASCA 144 is the culmination of some 16 years of continuous
litigation by Grancy against Mr Gihwala, his family trust, and Mr Manala (the respondents), to obtain an accounting from them showing how investments Grancy made in association with the respondents were utilised and to quantify its claims against them. Is this the end of the road for Mr Gihwala?
The Supreme Court of Appeal has itself pronounced on different aspects of the “continuous litigation” in matters such as :
(a) Grancy v Seena Marena Investments (Pty) Ltd [2014] ZASCA 50; [2014] 3 All SA 123 (SCA);
(b) Gihwala & Others v Grancy Property (Pty) Ltd & Others [2016] ZASSCA 35; [2016] 2 All SA 649 (SCA); 2017(2) SA 337 (SCA);