Boldprops 1110 CC v Automatic Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (07946/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 216 (5 August 2016)

Boldprops 1110 CC v Automatic Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (07946/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 216 (5 August 2016)

The court found that the respondents were not prejudiced by the applicant's failure to attach the franchise agreement to its founding affidavit, as the respondents had authored the agreement and were aware of its terms. The applicant had referenced the agreement in its founding papers, and the respondents' denial of accountability was based on the agreement's terms. The applicant's annexure of the agreement in reply was not an attempt to supplement its case but a response to the defence raised. The applicant also indicated it would not object to the respondents filing a further affidavit. Accordingly, the application to strike out the annexure was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 216
Parties
Applicant: Boldprops 1110 CC (in liquidation); Respondent: Automatic Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Blue Nightingale Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2016
Case Number
07946/2016
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Application to Strike Out Annexure in Reply
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed with costs awarded against the respondents.
Judges
T. Moosa
Legal Topics
Striking Out Evidence, Replying Affidavit, Prejudice, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 35, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Striking Out Evidence Replying Affidavit Prejudice Uniform Rules of Court Rule 35 Costs Order

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boldprops 1110 CC (in liquidation)

Applicant

Automatic Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Blue Nightingale Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Application to Strike Out Annexure in Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to annex the franchise agreement to its replying affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were prejudiced by the late filing of the franchise agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are entitled to have the annexure struck out.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were not prejudiced by the applicant's failure to attach the franchise agreement to its founding affidavit, as the respondents had authored the agreement and were aware of its terms. The applicant had referenced the agreement in its founding papers, and the respondents' denial of accountability was based on the agreement's terms. The applicant's annexure of the agreement in reply was not an attempt to supplement its case but a response to the defence raised. The applicant also indicated it would not object to the respondents filing a further affidavit. Accordingly, the application to strike out the annexure was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed with costs awarded against the respondents.

Orders

  • The application to strike out Annexure 'GVV15' is dismissed.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application.