Hacker v Hartmann and Others (1415/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 15 (19 April 2018)

Hacker v Hartmann and Others (1415/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 15 (19 April 2018)

The court found that the respondents' supplementary answering affidavit was filed without the required leave of the court, as mandated by Rule 6(5)(e) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Although the applicant's objections to the respondents' litigation conduct and the prolix nature of their affidavits were justified, the court declined to strike out the entire supplementary affidavit at this interlocutory stage. The judge reasoned that striking out the affidavit in its entirety could unfairly deprive the first respondent of the opportunity to present his case, especially given the serious allegations against him. The court held that applications to strike out portions of affidavits are...

Citation
[2018] ZAECPEHC 15
Parties
Applicant: Inge Joanne Hacker; Respondent: Mark Keiser Hartmann; Respondent: Bex Hotel (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: John Michael (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marie-Jose Gabreille Hartmann N.O.; Respondent: Roland Hans Heiriss N.O.; Respondent: Mark Keiser Hartmann N.O.; Respondent: Wendy Fiona Hay N.O.; Respondent: Inge Joanne Hacker N.O.; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Properties Commission
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2018
Case Number
1415/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application Under Rule 30 to Strike Out Supplementary Affidavit
Outcome
Application in terms of Rule 30 dismissed. Respondents ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale. Applicant granted leave to file replying affidavit to supplementary affidavit within 21 days.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court Rule 30, Supplementary Affidavit, Condonation, Delinquent Director, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Uniform Rules of Court Rule 30 Supplementary Affidavit Condonation Delinquent Director Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inge Joanne Hacker

Applicant

Mark Keiser Hartmann

Respondent

Bex Hotel (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

John Michael (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Marie-Jose Gabreille Hartmann N.O.

Respondent

Roland Hans Heiriss N.O.

Respondent

Mark Keiser Hartmann N.O.

Respondent

Wendy Fiona Hay N.O.

Respondent

Inge Joanne Hacker N.O.

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Properties Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application Under Rule 30 to Strike Out Supplementary Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' supplementary answering affidavit and annexures filed without leave of court constitute an irregular step under Rule 30.
  2. 2 Whether the supplementary affidavit should be struck out in its entirety or in part.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' litigation conduct warrants a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' supplementary answering affidavit was filed without the required leave of the court, as mandated by Rule 6(5)(e) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Although the applicant's objections to the respondents' litigation conduct and the prolix nature of their affidavits were justified, the court declined to strike out the entire supplementary affidavit at this interlocutory stage. The judge reasoned that striking out the affidavit in its entirety could unfairly deprive the first respondent of the opportunity to present his case, especially given the serious allegations against him. The court held that applications to strike out portions of affidavits are...

Court Disposition

Application in terms of Rule 30 dismissed. Respondents ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale. Applicant granted leave to file replying affidavit to supplementary affidavit within 21 days.

Orders

  • The application brought in terms of Uniform Court Rule 30 is dismissed.
  • The respondents are liable to pay the costs of the application, on a scale as between attorney and client, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.