Direlabatho Refuse (Pty) Ltd v Makoela and Others (654/2007) [2007] ZANWHC 19 (8 June 2007)

Direlabatho Refuse (Pty) Ltd v Makoela and Others (654/2007) [2007] ZANWHC 19 (8 June 2007)

The court determined that, although the respondents had previously requested a postponement for the same reason, justice required that they be afforded a final opportunity to obtain legal representation due to the significant interests at stake. The court exercised its discretion to grant a further and final postponement, extending the rule nisi and setting deadlines for the filing of affidavits. In the interests of fairness, no costs were awarded against the respondents for the postponement; costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 19
Parties
Applicant: Direlabatho Refuse (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dina Amelia Makoela; Respondent: Molefi Sello; Respondent: Andrew Sello; Respondent: Mpho Matshego
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2007
Case Number
654/2007
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Postponement Order Prior to Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application postponed; procedural timetable set; costs reserved as costs in the cause.
Judges
M.T.R. Mogoeng
Legal Topics
Postponement of Hearing, Unrepresented Litigants, Costs in the Cause
Civil Procedure Postponement of Hearing Unrepresented Litigants Costs in the Cause

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Direlabatho Refuse (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Dina Amelia Makoela

Respondent

Molefi Sello

Respondent

Andrew Sello

Respondent

Mpho Matshego

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Postponement Order Prior to Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the respondents be granted a further postponement to obtain legal representation?
  2. 2 Should costs be awarded against the respondents for the postponement?

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that, although the respondents had previously requested a postponement for the same reason, justice required that they be afforded a final opportunity to obtain legal representation due to the significant interests at stake. The court exercised its discretion to grant a further and final postponement, extending the rule nisi and setting deadlines for the filing of affidavits. In the interests of fairness, no costs were awarded against the respondents for the postponement; costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application postponed; procedural timetable set; costs reserved as costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The matter is postponed to 28 June 2007, and the rule nisi is extended to that date.
  • The respondents are to file and serve their Answering Affidavit on or before 18 June 2007.