BCM Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Minne (20227/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 607 (2 September 2021)

BCM Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Minne (20227/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 607 (2 September 2021)

The court found that the respondent's late delivery of the answering affidavit was satisfactorily explained and condoned, with costs awarded against the respondent for the condonation application. The first point in limine regarding locus standi failed because the respondent did not invoke Rule 7(1) and the applicant's authority was not properly challenged. The second point in limine regarding non-joinder of Mr Hampton was dismissed as Mr Hampton was aware of the proceedings and the assets belonged to the applicant. The third point in limine, seeking a stay of proceedings due to lis pendens, was upheld because the related application could directly affect the outcome of the present matter...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 607
Parties
Applicant: BCM Supplies (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marthinus Christoffel Minne
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2021
Case Number
20227/2019
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Opposed Motion; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Proceedings stayed pending finalization of related application; costs of condonation awarded against respondent; no further costs order.
Judges
Minnaar
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Lis Pendens, Locus Standi, Non Joinder, Authority of Attorney
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Stay of Proceedings Lis Pendens Locus Standi Non Joinder Authority of Attorney

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

Parties

BCM Supplies (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Marthinus Christoffel Minne

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Opposed Motion; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's late delivery of the answering affidavit should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application.
  3. 3 Whether there was a non-joinder of Mr Hampton.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's late delivery of the answering affidavit was satisfactorily explained and condoned, with costs awarded against the respondent for the condonation application. The first point in limine regarding locus standi failed because the respondent did not invoke Rule 7(1) and the applicant's authority was not properly challenged. The second point in limine regarding non-joinder of Mr Hampton was dismissed as Mr Hampton was aware of the proceedings and the assets belonged to the applicant. The third point in limine, seeking a stay of proceedings due to lis pendens, was upheld because the related application could directly affect the outcome of the present matter...

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed pending finalization of related application; costs of condonation awarded against respondent; no further costs order.

Orders

  • The respondent's late delivery of the answering affidavit is condoned.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application for condonation, including wasted costs incurred on 7 October 2020.