Du Preez v AB and Others (2019/13741) [2024] ZAGPJHC 780 (20 August 2024)

Du Preez v AB and Others (2019/13741) [2024] ZAGPJHC 780 (20 August 2024)

The applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Consolidated Practice Directives by not filing a practice note or heads of argument within the prescribed timeframes for urgent applications. No reasonable explanation was provided for this non-compliance at the hearing. Furthermore, the applicant's attorney did not furnish a current power of attorney authorising representation in these proceedings, despite being requested to do so. The only power of attorney provided was outdated and did not refer to the present application. These procedural failures warranted the striking of the application from the roll. The absence of any reasonable explanation for the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 780
Parties
Applicant: Du Preez, Craig Arthur; Respondent: AB; Respondent: CD; Respondent: Ulrich Roux & Associates; Respondent: Sheriff Letaba, Tzaneen
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2024
Case Number
2019/13741
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the roll due to non-compliance; punitive costs order against the applicant.
Judges
J Beyers
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Practice Directives Non Compliance, Stay of Execution, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Urgent Application Practice Directives Non Compliance Stay of Execution Punitive Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Du Preez, Craig Arthur

Applicant

AB

Respondent

CD

Respondent

Ulrich Roux & Associates

Respondent

Sheriff Letaba, Tzaneen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with the Consolidated Practice Directives for urgent applications.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with filing requirements.
  3. 3 Whether a valid power of attorney was furnished by the applicant's representative.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Consolidated Practice Directives by not filing a practice note or heads of argument within the prescribed timeframes for urgent applications. No reasonable explanation was provided for this non-compliance at the hearing. Furthermore, the applicant's attorney did not furnish a current power of attorney authorising representation in these proceedings, despite being requested to do so. The only power of attorney provided was outdated and did not refer to the present application. These procedural failures warranted the striking of the application from the roll. The absence of any reasonable explanation for the...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll due to non-compliance; punitive costs order against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll due to non-compliance.
  • The wasted costs are to be paid by the applicant on attorney and client scale.