Bobroff and Another v Law society of the Northern Provinces and Others; In re: Law society of the Northern Provinces v Bobroff and Others; In re: Law society of the Northern Provinces v Graham and Others (20066/2016, 61790/2012,) [2017] ZAGPPHC 33 (7 February 2017)

Bobroff and Another v Law society of the Northern Provinces and Others; In re: Law society of the Northern Provinces v Bobroff and Others; In re: Law society of the Northern Provinces v Graham and Others (20066/2016, 61790/2012,) [2017] ZAGPPHC 33 (7 February 2017)

The court found that the applicants had actual notice of the 2016 application, as evidenced by correspondence and their own conduct in seeking legal representation. Their departure from South Africa and refusal to instruct their previous attorney to accept service were deliberate acts to avoid formal service. The court held that strict compliance with rule 4 was not required under these circumstances and condoned the irregular service. The matters were properly enrolled for hearing, and the applicants' objections were unfounded. The application for postponement was not made bona fide but was a further attempt to delay proceedings, as demonstrated by the applicants' history of delaying...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 33
Parties
Applicant: Ronald Bobroff; Applicant: Darren Rodney Bobroff; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces; Respondent: Jennifer Graham; Respondent: Matthew Graham; Respondent: Stephen Derek Bezuidenhout; Respondent: Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc.; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2017
Case Number
20066/2016, 61790/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Reasons for Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications Seeking Condonation, Striking From Roll, and Postponement
Outcome
The applications for condonation, striking from the roll, and postponement were dismissed.
Judges
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, Ranchod
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Postponement, Disciplinary Proceedings, Attorney Misconduct
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Service of Process Postponement Disciplinary Proceedings Attorney Misconduct

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Bobroff

Applicant

Darren Rodney Bobroff

Applicant

Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Jennifer Graham

Respondent

Matthew Graham

Respondent

Stephen Derek Bezuidenhout

Respondent

Ronald Bobroff and Partners Inc.

Respondent

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Reasons for Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications Seeking Condonation, Striking From Roll, and Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the 2016 application on the applicants was valid and sufficient.
  2. 2 Whether the matters were properly enrolled for hearing on 6 December 2016.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to a postponement of the hearings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had actual notice of the 2016 application, as evidenced by correspondence and their own conduct in seeking legal representation. Their departure from South Africa and refusal to instruct their previous attorney to accept service were deliberate acts to avoid formal service. The court held that strict compliance with rule 4 was not required under these circumstances and condoned the irregular service. The matters were properly enrolled for hearing, and the applicants' objections were unfounded. The application for postponement was not made bona fide but was a further attempt to delay proceedings, as demonstrated by the applicants' history of delaying...

Court Disposition

The applications for condonation, striking from the roll, and postponement were dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants' applications for condonation, striking from the roll, and postponement are dismissed.
  • The reasons for the dismissal are furnished as set out in this judgment.