Fountain Private Hospital v Rataudintwe (030636/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 820 (24 July 2023)

Fountain Private Hospital v Rataudintwe (030636/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 820 (24 July 2023)

The Court found that the respondent's attorney did possess the right of appearance in the High Court, as evidenced by the certificate provided and the provisions of the Legal Practice Act. Rule 18(1) does not require that the right of appearance be expressly stated on the face of the summons or particulars of claim....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 820
Parties
Applicant: Fountain Private Hospital; Respondent: Mmabatho Ngoananoka Portia Ratau-Dintwe
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 July 2023
Case Number
030636/2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Rule 30(2)(b) Irregular Step Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
P V Ternent
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Right of Appearance, Legal Practice Act, Irregular Step, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Right of Appearance Legal Practice Act Irregular Step Costs Award

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fountain Private Hospital

Applicant

Mmabatho Ngoananoka Portia Ratau-Dintwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Rule 30(2)(b) Irregular Step Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the combined summons signed by the respondent's attorney was irregular for failing to indicate her right of appearance under the Legal Practice Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant suffered prejudice due to the alleged irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be dismissed and how costs should be allocated.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondent's attorney did possess the right of appearance in the High Court, as evidenced by the certificate provided and the provisions of the Legal Practice Act. Rule 18(1) does not require that the right of appearance be expressly stated on the face of the summons or particulars of claim. Once the applicant was made aware of the attorney's right of appearance, there was no substantive irregularity or prejudice suffered. The application was therefore dismissed as unnecessary and technical, with the Court expressing disapproval of both parties' intransigence and procedural point-taking. The Court exercised its discretion on costs, ordering each party to pay its...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.