De Beer v Von Landsberg and Others (36842/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1264 (26 January 2017)

De Beer v Von Landsberg and Others (36842/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1264 (26 January 2017)

The court held that the institution of a combined summons by the First and Second Respondents under the existing case number was not an irregular step, as the proper procedure for rescission of judgment on common law grounds is by way of action. The authorities cited support this approach, and the Applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1264
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Christofel De Beer; Respondent: Heinrich Von Landsberg; Respondent: Universal Pulse Trading 367 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Alexiprox (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Case Number
36842/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Rule 30(1) Irregular Step Application and Contempt Application
Outcome
The Applicant's application to declare the combined summons an irregular step is dismissed with costs. The application for condonation is granted. The First Respondent is held in contempt of court but committal to prison is suspended on condition of compliance. Costs of applications to compel and for contempt are...
Judges
PM Mabuse
Legal Topics
Irregular Step, Condonation, Contempt of Court, Locus Standi, Rescission of Judgment, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Irregular Step Condonation Contempt of Court Locus Standi Rescission of Judgment Joinder of Parties

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Christofel De Beer

Applicant

Heinrich Von Landsberg

Respondent

Universal Pulse Trading 367 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Alexiprox (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Rule 30(1) Irregular Step Application and Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the combined summons issued by the First and Second Respondents under an existing case number constitutes an irregular step.
  2. 2 Whether the First and Second Respondents' application for condonation for late filing of answering affidavit should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the First Respondent is in contempt of the court order dated 30 September 2016.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the institution of a combined summons by the First and Second Respondents under the existing case number was not an irregular step, as the proper procedure for rescission of judgment on common law grounds is by way of action. The authorities cited support this approach, and the Applicant's objections were dismissed. The joinder of the Third Respondent was not found to be improper, as it is for the Third Respondent to defend its position. The application for condonation for late filing of the answering affidavit was granted, as the delay was explained and no prejudice to the Applicant was demonstrated. The First Respondent was found to be in contempt of the court order...

Court Disposition

The Applicant's application to declare the combined summons an irregular step is dismissed with costs. The application for condonation is granted. The First Respondent is held in contempt of court but committal to prison is suspended on condition of compliance. Costs of applications to compel and for contempt are...

Orders

  • The Applicant's application for an order declaring the combined summons instituted by the First and Second Respondents under case number 36842/16 as an irregular step is dismissed with costs, including costs for two counsel where applicable.
  • The application for condonation for late filing of the answering affidavit is granted; the First and Second Respondents are ordered to pay the costs thereof, the one paying and the other to be absolved.