The high court partially upheld an appeal against a decision of a magistrate.  In  May 2012 the Club sued M in the magistrates’ court for subscriptions arising out of composite membership of the Club.  Only two issues had to be decided #1 jurisdiction; and #2 membership of the Club.  The issue of jurisdiction was resolved in favour of the Club after discussing the legal meaning of ‘cause of action’.  See Cause of action defined: Proper legal meaning.  Interpreting the Club’s constitution it was held that M was only liable for membership fees until his membership terminated as provided for in the constitution.

M v Zimbali Country Club (AR207/2016) [2016] ZAKZPHC 81 (23 September 2016) per Seegobin J (P Olsen J concurring)


[24]   In light of the above, I conclude that the consequences flowing from clause 5.6 of the constitution were relevant to the overall issue of membership which the learned magistrate was required to decide.  To that extent the judgment of the learned magistrate insofar as the 2012 subscriptions are concerned is wrong and must be corrected.  The effect of this is that the appeal succeeds insofar as the [Club’s] claim for the 2012 subscriptions is concerned.   In view of the fact that Mr M has been substantially successful in his appeal, there is no reason why the [Club] should not bear the costs of the appeal.