Akd Communications (Pty) Ltd and Others v Business Partners (Pty) Ltd (5659/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 6 (10 January 2012)

Akd Communications (Pty) Ltd and Others v Business Partners (Pty) Ltd (5659/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 6 (10 January 2012)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of their opposing affidavit, as their attorney's misunderstanding of the law regarding exceptions and summary judgment was incorrect and did not justify the delay. The applicants did not establish prospects of success, as their grounds of exception were misconceived and did not constitute bona fide defences. The locus standi of the first to fourth applicants was not established due to lack of confirmatory affidavits or proof of authority. The respondent's answering affidavit contained inadmissible material, which was struck out. The summary judgment application was unopposed and the...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 6
Parties
Applicant: AKD Communications (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Craig Charles Dawson; Applicant: Stanton Rhett Hall Baines; Applicant: Much-Ado Investments CC; Applicant: Andrew Keith Dawson; Respondent: Business Partners (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 January 2012
Case Number
5659/2011
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment / Application for Condonation and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the applicants' affidavit resisting summary judgment is refused. Summary judgment is granted in favour of the respondent.
Judges
Hiemstra
Legal Topics
Condonation, Summary Judgment, Exception to Summons, Certificate of Indebtedness, Suretyship Liability
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Condonation Summary Judgment Exception to Summons Certificate of Indebtedness Suretyship Liability

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AKD Communications (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Craig Charles Dawson

Applicant

Stanton Rhett Hall Baines

Applicant

Much-Ado Investments CC

Applicant

Andrew Keith Dawson

Applicant

Business Partners (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment / Application for Condonation and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the opposing affidavit in the summary judgment application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have shown prospects of success sufficient to justify condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's answering affidavit in the condonation application contains inadmissible material under Rule 32(4).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of their opposing affidavit, as their attorney's misunderstanding of the law regarding exceptions and summary judgment was incorrect and did not justify the delay. The applicants did not establish prospects of success, as their grounds of exception were misconceived and did not constitute bona fide defences. The locus standi of the first to fourth applicants was not established due to lack of confirmatory affidavits or proof of authority. The respondent's answering affidavit contained inadmissible material, which was struck out. The summary judgment application was unopposed and the...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the applicants' affidavit resisting summary judgment is refused. Summary judgment is granted in favour of the respondent.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the applicants' affidavit resisting summary judgment is refused.
  • Summary judgment is granted for payment of R1,688,052.82.