Acqui 38 (Pty) Ltd v Blue Risk Management (Pty) Ltd (30443/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2052 (22 December 2023)

Acqui 38 (Pty) Ltd v Blue Risk Management (Pty) Ltd (30443/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2052 (22 December 2023)

The court found that the withdrawal of the respondent's attorneys was executed in accordance with Uniform Rule 16, and the respondent was properly notified. The respondent failed to appoint a new service address within the required period, and the applicant's service of documents at the registered address complied with Uniform Rule 4. The evidence, including the sheriff's return and CaseLines data, confirmed proper service. The respondent's representative accepted service at the registered address, and a WinDeed search confirmed the address had not changed. The applicant made diligent efforts to inform the respondent of the application. The court was satisfied that the draft order was in...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 2052
Parties
Applicant: Acqui 38 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Blue Risk Management (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 December 2023
Case Number
30443/2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Unopposed Motion to Compel
Outcome
Application granted. The applicant's motion to compel is successful and the draft order is made an order of court.
Judges
Khwinana
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Withdrawal of Attorney, Uniform Rules of Court, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Service of Process Withdrawal of Attorney Uniform Rules of Court Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Acqui 38 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Blue Risk Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Unopposed Motion to Compel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was properly served with legal documents following the withdrawal of its attorneys.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with Uniform Rule 16 and Rule 4 regarding service.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's failure to appoint a new service address affects the validity of service and entitlement to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the withdrawal of the respondent's attorneys was executed in accordance with Uniform Rule 16, and the respondent was properly notified. The respondent failed to appoint a new service address within the required period, and the applicant's service of documents at the registered address complied with Uniform Rule 4. The evidence, including the sheriff's return and CaseLines data, confirmed proper service. The respondent's representative accepted service at the registered address, and a WinDeed search confirmed the address had not changed. The applicant made diligent efforts to inform the respondent of the application. The court was satisfied that the draft order was in...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The applicant's motion to compel is successful and the draft order is made an order of court.

Orders

  • The respondent is compelled to file heads of argument and participate in a pre-hearing conference.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.