Carrim (Pty) Ltd v Bosielo (18887/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 329 (10 October 2008)
- Citation
- [2008] ZAGPHC 329
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- Ngoepe
- Case number
- 18887/08
More details
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- Ngoepe
- Case number
- 18887/08
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found no grounds to grant the respondent's request for postponement, noting the lengthy delay and the respondent's failure to file opposing papers despite ample opportunity. The respondent did not dispute liability, only the amount owed, which is a matter for the trial court. The court emphasized that the respondent's position as a judge should not influence the decision to grant or refuse postponement. Given the absence of submissions on the merits and the lack of opposition, the court granted the relief sought, allowing the applicant to institute civil action for the claimed amount.
Court disposition
Leave granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent for payment of the claimed amount.
Orders
- Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to institute civil action against the Respondent for payment of the amount of R304,501.92 together with interest thereon a tempora morae, together with costs, for goods allegedly sold and delivered by the Applicant to the Respondent.
- Costs to be costs in the main action.
02
Material facts
Parties
Carrim (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Adv CilliersThe Hon Mr Justice Bosielo
Respondent Counsel: Adv KgoroeadiraAmounts and remedies
- Amount Claimed: ZAR 304,501.92
03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Institute Civil Action Against a Sitting Judge
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent, a serving judge, for payment of an alleged debt for goods sold and delivered.
- 02
Whether the respondent's request for postponement should be granted given the circumstances.
- 03
Whether the respondent's position as a judge affects the granting of postponement or leave to sue.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant opposed the postponement, arguing that the respondent had been given ample time over nearly two years to respond or settle the matter. The applicant submitted that the respondent had not filed any opposing papers or notice to oppose, and that settlement negotiations had not resulted in payment. The applicant maintained that the amount claimed was due for goods sold and delivered, and that prescription was looming, necessitating prompt resolution.
- Respondent
- The respondent, through counsel, requested a postponement to file opposing papers, citing ongoing settlement negotiations and an intention to dispute certain items on the statement. The respondent did not dispute indebtedness entirely but claimed to owe a lesser amount. Counsel indicated that, if postponement was refused, no submissions would be made on the merits.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 25 of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959
Where a respondent does not dispute indebtedness but only the quantum, leave to sue should not be refused; the trial court will resolve the amount.
- 02
General principles of civil procedure
Postponement should not be granted without sufficient grounds, especially where the matter has been pending for a long period and the respondent has had ample opportunity to respond.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found no grounds to grant the respondent's request for postponement, noting the lengthy delay and the respondent's failure to file opposing papers despite ample opportunity. The respondent did not dispute liability, only the amount owed, which is a matter for the trial court. The court emphasized that the respondent's position as a judge should not influence the decision to grant or refuse postponement. Given the absence of submissions on the merits and the lack of opposition, the court granted the relief sought, allowing the applicant to institute civil action for the claimed amount.
Obiter and limits
- The court expressed concern that granting a postponement solely because the respondent is a judge could create a wrong impression, which the respondent himself would not wish to be created.
- The court noted the looming issue of prescription and the risk of future accusations regarding responsibility for any prescription.
Court disposition
Leave granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent for payment of the claimed amount.
- Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to institute civil action against the Respondent for payment of the amount of R304,501.92 together with interest thereon a tempora morae, together with costs, for goods allegedly sold and delivered by the Applicant to the Respondent.
- Costs to be costs in the main action.
Source and reliance status
High Courts - Gauteng
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Courts - Gauteng
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA /ie
(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
DATE: 10 October 2008
CASE NO: 18887/08
In the matter between:
CARRIM (PTY) LTD Applicant
versus
THE HON MR JUSTICE BOSIELO Respondent
JUDGMENT
NGOEPE JP
[1] This is an application in terms of Section 25 of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 for leave to sue the respondent, a serving judge of this Division, for an outstanding amount of money, allegedly for goods sold and delivered.
[2] The amount claimed in the Notice of Motion is R304,501-92. The founding papers were served on the respondent on the 23rd April 2008 personally, by the then Acting Judge President of this Division, Hon Deputy Judge President P M Mojapelo. No opposing
affidavit was filed by the respondent, and also, no notice to oppose the application was delivered. Consequently, after the applicant had sought and obtained a date for the hearing of the matter, the applicant proceeded to set it down without serving the notice of set down on the respondent. At the hearing of the application on 7 October 2008, Adv Kgoroeadira appeared before court on behalf of the respondent. She asked for a postponement of the matter, sothat the respondent could file some opposing papers. The application was vehemently opposed. The court was told that opposing papers had not been delivered because there was a settlement negotiation in progress. The court was told that the respondent would dispute certain items on the statement.
[3] The biggest problem for the court was when told that the respondent would not dispute that he was indebted to the applicant at all, but that he owed less. In such a case, the court cannot refuse leave; the dispute about the amount would fall to be resolved by the trial court.
[4] As already said, the application for postponement was vehemently opposed by counsel for the applicant. The court was taken through a lengthy exchange of letters and telephone communications on both sides dating back nearly two years. It was submitted that all these indicated that the respondent had been given more than enough time to take appropriate steps to show that he was either not indebted to the applicant at all, or that he was indebted to a lesser amount.
[5] The truth is that, in the event of the necessary consent being given, the respondent would, at the appropriate time and forum, still be able to asset whatever payments respondent says he has to date made, or to dispute whatever items he queries. On respondent’s
given version, there would be an amount which the respondent would be owing anyway. Also, the consent would be no bar to settlement
negotiations. The granting of the application would not prevent the continuing or resumption of negotiations.
[6] The court finds itself in a situation where it simply has no grounds to grant the postponement. Counsel for the respondent indicated to the court that, in the event of the postponement being refused, she would not be in a position to make any submissions on the merits.
[7] The court is concerned that given the position of the respondent, and the paucity of reasons for a postponement, a wrong impression may be created that the postponement is granted simply because the respondent is a judge of this court. It is an impression which no doubt the respondent himself would not like to be created.
[8] This application has been before court for a very long time. Firstly, it came as an informal application, seeking to secure the consent without the need to initiate formal court proceedings. When this did not work for the applicant, a formal application was lodged and as said earlier, served on the respondent in April this year. There is also the question of possible prescription looming. This court would not want to find itself embroiled in possible accusations and counter-accusations as to who could be responsible for prescription.
[9] For all the above reasons, the court is not able to accede to a request for a postponement.
[10] As said earlier, no submissions were to be made on the merits in the event of the application for postponement being refused. It follows that the relief sought must therefore be granted.
[11] As far as the costs are concerned, and given the fact that this is still an on-going litigation, the court is of the view that costs should be costs in the main action. In the circumstances the following order is made:
(a) Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to institute civil action against the Respondent for payment of the amount of R304,501-92 together with interest thereon a tempora morae, together with costs, for goods allegedly sold and delivered by the Applicant to the Respondent.
_______
B M NGOEPE
JUDGE PRESIDENT
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION
Heard on 7 October 2008
Representation for the applicant
Counsel: Adv Cilliers
Instructed by Cilliers & Reynders Inc
Representation for first respondent
Counsel Adv Kgoroeadira
Instructed by Mothuloe Attorneys
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.