Afrika A Mina Engineering CC v Magabe and Another (09248/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 133 (9 March 2022)

Afrika A Mina Engineering CC v Magabe and Another (09248/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 133 (9 March 2022)

The court found that while the first respondent's application for postponement was not convincing, particularly given the withdrawal of his attorney and the lack of substantive progress since the previous postponement, he should be afforded a final opportunity to file an answering affidavit and oppose the sequestration application. The court emphasized that no further postponements for the purpose of obtaining legal representation would be granted unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The court also ordered the first respondent to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement, including those of the second respondent.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 133
Parties
Applicant: Afrika A Mina Engineering CC; Respondent: Morwana Bernard Magabe; Respondent: Mama Josephine Magabe
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2022
Case Number
09248/2020
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Postponement Application Prior to Hearing of Provisional Sequestration
Outcome
Postponement granted with strict conditions; wasted costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
Réan Strydom
Legal Topics
Postponement of Hearing, Stay of Sequestration, Wasted Costs, Right to Legal Representation
Civil Procedure Postponement of Hearing Stay of Sequestration Wasted Costs Right to Legal Representation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afrika A Mina Engineering CC

Applicant

Morwana Bernard Magabe

Respondent

Mama Josephine Magabe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Postponement Application Prior to Hearing of Provisional Sequestration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent should be granted a postponement to obtain legal representation.
  2. 2 Whether the application for postponement is bona fide and justified.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's financial circumstances justify further delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the first respondent's application for postponement was not convincing, particularly given the withdrawal of his attorney and the lack of substantive progress since the previous postponement, he should be afforded a final opportunity to file an answering affidavit and oppose the sequestration application. The court emphasized that no further postponements for the purpose of obtaining legal representation would be granted unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The court also ordered the first respondent to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement, including those of the second respondent.

Court Disposition

Postponement granted with strict conditions; wasted costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.
  • The matter is to be set down for hearing on the opposed roll for 25 April 2022.