1. What constitutes valid proof of electronic service?

The Registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal has made it unequivocally clear that, going forward, only two forms of proof will be accepted as primary proof of service where service is effected by email:

• A delivery/transmission report; or
• A service affidavit.

Read receipts and acknowledgements of receipt are expressly downgraded and are no longer sufficient on their own.

Practical consequence

A party who serves a document by email and files it with the Registrar without attaching either a delivery/transmission report or a service affidavit risks rejection of the filing, irrespective of whether the opposing party in fact received the document.

2. Read receipts are optional and secondary only

• A read receipt or acknowledgement of receipt may still be attached, but
• Such confirmation is regarded as secondary proof only, and
• It is optional, not mandatory.

This is an important correction to a widespread misconception that an email “read” confirmation suffices as proof of service. It does not.

3. Service outside court hours: when is service deemed effective?

The SCA has also clarified the temporal validity of electronic service.

Court hours

• Electronic service is only regarded as proper service if effected between 09:00 and 16:00 on a court day.

Service after hours or on non-court days

• If an email is sent after 16:00, or
• On a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday, then service is deemed to have occurred on the next court day.

Practical consequence

This clarification is critical for:

• Calculating dies,
• Determining compliance with filing deadlines, and
• Avoiding disputes about whether service was timeous.

Sending an email at 16:05 does not preserve a deadline.

4. Why this matters

This reflects the SCA’s increasing intolerance for:

• Casual electronic service practices,
• Incomplete records,
• And procedural shortcuts that burden the Registry and the Court.

It reinforces a broader judicial trend towards procedural discipline, especially in appellate litigation where compliance with formal requirements is strictly enforced.

For practitioners, this notice serves as a warning: electronic convenience does not dilute procedural rigour.

5. Key takeaways for practitioners

Practitioners appearing before the SCA should immediately adjust their internal practices:

• Always generate and retain a delivery or transmission report when serving by email;
• Alternatively, prepare and file a service affidavit as a matter of course;
• Do not rely on read receipts as proof of service;
• Ensure that electronic service is effected within court hours;
• Treat after-hours service as service on the next court day for all deadline calculations.

Failure to comply may result in documents not being accepted for lodgement, with potentially serious consequences for appeals and applications.

6. Conclusion

This provides welcome clarity on electronic service before the Supreme Court of Appeal. While it simplifies proof by narrowing acceptable forms, it simultaneously raises the bar for compliance. In appellate practice, where procedural missteps can be fatal, strict adherence to these directives is no longer optional, it is essential.

Practitioners would be well advised to treat this notice as a standing instruction governing all email service in SCA matters, rather than as a mere administrative guideline.