Dlulane v Twani and Others (459/16; 460/16; 289/16) [2018] ZAECBHC 9 (7 June 2018)

Dlulane v Twani and Others (459/16; 460/16; 289/16) [2018] ZAECBHC 9 (7 June 2018)

The court found that the applicants delayed unreasonably in bringing their review applications, with delays of nearly four years after the judgments were granted. Their explanations for the delay were vague, lacking detail, and failed to account for the entire period. The applicants had consented to the judgments and made regular payments without objection, indicating acquiescence. Capitec Bank was prejudiced by the delay, as evidence and witnesses were no longer available, and the reopening of settled debts would negatively impact the credit industry. Furthermore, the applicants admitted their indebtedness and suffered no prejudice from the alleged procedural irregularities. As prejudice...

Citation
[2018] ZAECBHC 9
Parties
Applicant: Thembukazi Nolihle Dlulane; Applicant: Ndileka Mpoza; Respondent: Magistrate Twani; Respondent: Capitec Bank Ltd; Respondent: Clerk of the Civil Court, Zwelitsha; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2018
Case Number
459/16; 460/16; 289/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Plasket, NP Ntlama
Legal Topics
Review of Magistrates Court, Emoluments Attachment Order, Unreasonable Delay, Gross Irregularity, Prejudice Requirement
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Review of Magistrates Court Emoluments Attachment Order Unreasonable Delay Gross Irregularity Prejudice Requirement

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thembukazi Nolihle Dlulane

Applicant

Ndileka Mpoza

Applicant

Magistrate Twani

Respondent

Capitec Bank Ltd

Respondent

Clerk of the Civil Court, Zwelitsha

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants delayed unreasonably in bringing their review applications and if condonation should be granted for such delay.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established gross irregularities in the proceedings sufficient to set aside the judgments.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants suffered prejudice as a result of the alleged irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants delayed unreasonably in bringing their review applications, with delays of nearly four years after the judgments were granted. Their explanations for the delay were vague, lacking detail, and failed to account for the entire period. The applicants had consented to the judgments and made regular payments without objection, indicating acquiescence. Capitec Bank was prejudiced by the delay, as evidence and witnesses were no longer available, and the reopening of settled debts would negatively impact the credit industry. Furthermore, the applicants admitted their indebtedness and suffered no prejudice from the alleged procedural irregularities. As prejudice...

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application in each matter is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.