Hendrik v Goosen and Another, Johannes v Goosen and Another (M22/16, M23/16) [2016] ZANWHC 25 (2 June 2016)

Hendrik v Goosen and Another, Johannes v Goosen and Another (M22/16, M23/16) [2016] ZANWHC 25 (2 June 2016)

The court found that, despite the weak explanation for the delay in filing the replications, no serious prejudice would be suffered by the respondents and the replications could assist the court at trial. Good cause was shown for the late filing, and the orders sought were granted. Regarding costs, the court held...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZANWHC 25
Parties
Applicant: Duminy Jan Hendrik; Applicant: Swart Karel Johannes; Respondent: Willem Andreas Goosen; Respondent: Maria Cornelia Goosen
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2016
Case Number
M22/16, M23/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Condonation and Extension of Time to File Replication
Outcome
Application for condonation and extension of time to file replication granted; costs awarded against applicants' legal representatives in M22/2016 only.
Judges
AA Landman
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Extension of Time, Replication, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Extension of Time Replication 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duminy Jan Hendrik

Applicant

Swart Karel Johannes

Applicant

Willem Andreas Goosen

Respondent

Maria Cornelia Goosen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Condonation and Extension of Time to File Replication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for the late filing of their replications.
  2. 2 Whether the time period for filing the replications should be extended.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application for condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the weak explanation for the delay in filing the replications, no serious prejudice would be suffered by the respondents and the replications could assist the court at trial. Good cause was shown for the late filing, and the orders sought were granted. Regarding costs, the court held that the applicants' legal representatives, not the parties themselves, should bear the costs of opposition in matter M22/2016, given the circumstances and the need for collegiality among practitioners. No costs order was made in matter M23/2016 due to duplication of material and services.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and extension of time to file replication granted; costs awarded against applicants' legal representatives in M22/2016 only.

Orders

  • In matter M22/2016: The time period for filing the plaintiff's replication to the first and second defendants' pleas is extended for a period of 10 days commencing on the day after delivery of this judgment.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to file his replication within the abovementioned period.