Absa Bank Ltd v Sibanzi Construction CC (13045/2009) [2009] ZAGPPHC 195 (29 May 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAGPPHC 195
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Botha
- Case number
- 13045/2009
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Botha
- Case number
- 13045/2009
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the answering affidavit was delivered only one day late, with a public holiday intervening, and that insisting on a formal application for condonation would be unreasonable and a waste of costs. The respondent raised a bona fide defence regarding the alleged non-compliance with sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005. There were insufficient facts before the court to determine whether the Act applied or whether its provisions were complied with. Accordingly, condonation for the late delivery was granted and the defendant was given leave to defend.
Court disposition
Condonation for the late delivery of the answering affidavit is granted and the defendant is given leave to defend. Costs will be costs in the cause.
Orders
- The late delivery of the answering affidavit is condoned.
- Leave to defend is granted.
- Costs will be costs in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Absa Bank Ltd
PlaintiffSibanzi Construction CC
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Condonation for Late Delivery of Answering Affidavit
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether condonation should be granted for the late delivery of the answering affidavit.
- 02
Whether the defendant has raised a bona fide defence to the summary judgment application.
- 03
Whether sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 were complied with.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant insisted on a substantive application for condonation of the late delivery of the answering affidavit, arguing that the delay was not properly explained and that the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 does not apply to the matter.
- Respondent
- The respondent submitted that there is a bona fide defence based on the alleged non-compliance with sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005. The answering affidavit was delivered one day late, with a public holiday intervening, and the respondent argued that this should not prejudice its defence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of civil procedure
Condonation for late delivery of court documents may be granted where there is a bona fide defence and the delay is minimal, especially if the explanation for the delay is reasonable and does not prejudice the opposing party.
- 02
National Credit Act 34 of 2005
Compliance with sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act is required before a credit provider may enforce a debt in court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the answering affidavit was delivered only one day late, with a public holiday intervening, and that insisting on a formal application for condonation would be unreasonable and a waste of costs. The respondent raised a bona fide defence regarding the alleged non-compliance with sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005. There were insufficient facts before the court to determine whether the Act applied or whether its provisions were complied with. Accordingly, condonation for the late delivery was granted and the defendant was given leave to defend.
Obiter and limits
- It would be senseless and a waste of costs to insist on a formal condonation application in circumstances where the delay is minimal and a bona fide defence is raised.
Court disposition
Condonation for the late delivery of the answering affidavit is granted and the defendant is given leave to defend. Costs will be costs in the cause.
- The late delivery of the answering affidavit is condoned.
- Leave to defend is granted.
- Costs will be costs in the cause.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
NOT REPORTABLE
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(NORTH GAUTENG HOE HOF, PRETORIA)
SAAKNOMMER: 13045/2009
DATUM: 29/05/2009
In die saak tussen:
ABSA BANK LTD …......................................................EISER
EN
SIBANZI CONSTRUCTION CC....................................VERWEERDER
UITSPRAAK
BOTHA R:
Dit is 'n aansoek om summiere vonnis.
Die verweerder se beantwoordende verklaring is laat afgelewer. Daar is bona fide verweer in die vorm van 'n bewering dat artikels 129 en 130 van Wet 34 van 2005 nie nagekom is nie. Ofskoon daar betoog is dat Wet 34 van 2005 nie van toepassing is nie, is daar nie genoeg feite voor my om so'n bevinding te maak nie.
Die applikant het aangedring op 'n substantiewe aansoek orr kondonasie van die laat aflewering van die beatwoordende verklaring. Die verklaring is een dag laat afgelewer. Daar was 'n vakansie dag tussen in. Dit is ondenkbaar dat enige verduideliking van die versuim so ellendig kan wees dat dit nie aanwesigheid van 'n bona fide verweer sal oortroef. Derhalwe sol dit onsinnig wees, en 'n verkwisting van koste, om op 'n formele aansoek orr kondonasie aan te dring. Ek is bereid om kondonasie sonder meer te verleer en die beantwoordende verklaring te ontvang.
Die volgende bevel word verleen:
1. Die laat aflewering van die beantwoordende verklaring wore gekondoneer.
2. Verlof om te verdedig word verleen.
3. Koste sal koste in die geding wees.
C. BOTHA
REGTER VAN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.