Botha v 4D Health (Pty) Ltd (18976/19) [2023] ZAGPPHC 706 (21 August 2023)

Botha v 4D Health (Pty) Ltd (18976/19) [2023] ZAGPPHC 706 (21 August 2023)

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for seeking leave to file a supplementary affidavit and acted proactively by bringing the interlocutory application rather than attempting to introduce new evidence at the hearing. The respondent failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice that could not be remedied by a costs order and did not specify how the passage of time prejudiced its case. The court held that the relevant question was whether the cause of action rendering the applicant a contingent or prospective creditor existed, not whether the amended particulars of claim existed at the time of the liquidation application. The applicant's intention to cite...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 706
Parties
Applicant: Johanna Magrieta Susanna Botha; Respondent: 4D Health (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2023
Case Number
18976/19
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit in Winding Up Proceedings
Outcome
Application granted: leave to file supplementary affidavit with annexures.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Supplementary Affidavit, Winding Up Application, Locus Standi, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 6 5 E
Civil Procedure Supplementary Affidavit Winding Up Application Locus Standi Uniform Rules of Court Rule 6 5 E

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johanna Magrieta Susanna Botha

Applicant

4D Health (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit in Winding Up Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit introducing amended particulars of claim as new evidence in the winding-up application.
  2. 2 Whether the amended particulars of claim are material to the main application and relevant to the applicant's locus standi.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would suffer substantial prejudice if a fourth set of affidavits is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for seeking leave to file a supplementary affidavit and acted proactively by bringing the interlocutory application rather than attempting to introduce new evidence at the hearing. The respondent failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice that could not be remedied by a costs order and did not specify how the passage of time prejudiced its case. The court held that the relevant question was whether the cause of action rendering the applicant a contingent or prospective creditor existed, not whether the amended particulars of claim existed at the time of the liquidation application. The applicant's intention to cite...

Court Disposition

Application granted: leave to file supplementary affidavit with annexures.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit with annexure(s) within 10 days of the granting of this order.
  • The respondent is granted leave to file a response thereto within 10 days after receipt of the applicant's supplementary affidavit, whereafter the applicant may file her replying response within 10 days.