Bravo Group Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg (40205/14) [2022] ZAGPPHC 58 (15 February 2022)

Bravo Group Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg (40205/14) [2022] ZAGPPHC 58 (15 February 2022)

The court found that the respondent's assertion of finality was misplaced, as the unique nature of statement and debatement requires compliance with the order for provision and debate of the account before litigation can be considered finalised. The respondent's failure to comply with the 2014 order and its lack of explanation for the delay in responding to the request for further particulars was inexcusable. The applicant was entitled to proceed to trial and to receive the requested information to enable final determination of the matter. There was no basis to refer the application to the opposed motion roll, and the respondent was ordered to reply to the request for further particulars...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 58
Parties
Applicant: Bravo Group Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2022
Case Number
40205/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Further Particulars for Trial
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to reply to the applicant's request for further particulars within ten days and to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Statement and Debatement, Request for Further Particulars, Default Judgment, Trial Preparation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Statement and Debatement Request for Further Particulars Default Judgment Trial Preparation

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bravo Group Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Further Particulars for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to reply to the applicant's request for further particulars for trial purposes.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's late filing of its answering affidavit should be condoned and the matter referred to the opposed motion roll.
  3. 3 Whether the litigation between the parties was finalised by the default order granted in 2014.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's assertion of finality was misplaced, as the unique nature of statement and debatement requires compliance with the order for provision and debate of the account before litigation can be considered finalised. The respondent's failure to comply with the 2014 order and its lack of explanation for the delay in responding to the request for further particulars was inexcusable. The applicant was entitled to proceed to trial and to receive the requested information to enable final determination of the matter. There was no basis to refer the application to the opposed motion roll, and the respondent was ordered to reply to the request for further particulars...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to reply to the applicant's request for further particulars within ten days and to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to reply to the plaintiff’s Request for Further Particulars for the Purposes of a Trial within ten days.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of the application on an opposed motion attorney and client scale.