ABSA Bank v Van Zyl (M644/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 152 (29 August 2023)

ABSA Bank v Van Zyl (M644/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 152 (29 August 2023)

The applicant's enrolment of the application on the unopposed roll for 11 May 2023 was contrary to the court order of 23 February 2023, which postponed the matter to 8 September 2023. The order was valid and binding and had not been set aside or varied. The applicant failed to comply with Rule 41 and did not provide a plausible explanation for disregarding the order. The Rules of Court require strict adherence to procedural orders, and the applicant's actions constituted an irregular step. The application was therefore struck from the roll, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 152
Parties
Applicant: ABSA Bank; Respondent: Pieter Van Zyl
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2023
Case Number
M644/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Reasons for Order Following Striking From the Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
A Reddy
Legal Topics
Postponement of Application, Rule 41, Rule 6 5 F, Irregular Step, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Postponement of Application Rule 41 Rule 6 5 F Irregular Step Costs Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABSA Bank

Applicant

Pieter Van Zyl

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Reasons for Order Following Striking From the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant acted irregularly by enrolling the application on the unopposed roll contrary to a prior court order postponing the matter.
  2. 2 Whether the application should be struck from the roll due to non-compliance with the court order of 23 February 2023.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant for the irregular step.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's enrolment of the application on the unopposed roll for 11 May 2023 was contrary to the court order of 23 February 2023, which postponed the matter to 8 September 2023. The order was valid and binding and had not been set aside or varied. The applicant failed to comply with Rule 41 and did not provide a plausible explanation for disregarding the order. The Rules of Court require strict adherence to procedural orders, and the applicant's actions constituted an irregular step. The application was therefore struck from the roll, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs.