Carrim (Pty) Ltd v Bosielo (18887/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 329 (10 October 2008)

Carrim (Pty) Ltd v Bosielo (18887/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 329 (10 October 2008)

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.

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 329
Parties
Applicant: Carrim (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Hon Mr Justice Bosielo
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2008
Case Number
18887/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Institute Civil Action Against a Sitting Judge
Outcome
Leave granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent for payment of the claimed amount.
Judges
Ngoepe
Legal Topics
Leave to Sue Judge, Goods Sold and Delivered, Postponement, Prescription
Civil Procedure Leave to Sue Judge Goods Sold and Delivered Postponement Prescription

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carrim (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The Hon Mr Justice Bosielo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Institute Civil Action Against a Sitting Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 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.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's request for postponement should be granted given the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's position as a judge affects the granting of postponement or leave to sue.

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.

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.