HR Focus CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1121/2020) [2023] ZAECMKHC 111 (17 October 2023)
The court held that the applicant was granted leave only to deliver a supplementary replying affidavit, not a multi-purpose affidavit combining supplementary founding and replying content. The applicant's supplementary affidavit failed to comply with the court's order and the Uniform Rules of Court, as it was impossible to distinguish which portions supplemented the founding affidavit and which replied to the respondent's answering affidavit. This uncertainty would prejudice the respondent and undermine procedural fairness. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying the admission of the affidavit and noted that the pending Tax Appeal Court proceedings could materially affect...
- Citation
- [2023] ZAECMKHC 111
- Parties
- Applicant: HR Focus CC; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 17 October 2023
- Case Number
- 1121/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications Regarding Affidavits and Condonation
- Outcome
- The respondent's application to strike out is granted; the applicant's supplementary founding and replying affidavit is struck out in its entirety. The applicant's interlocutory application for condonation and leave to supplement is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the respondent on a party and party scale, including...
- Judges
- Laing
- Legal Topics
- Supplementary Affidavit, Condonation, Striking Out, Employment Tax Incentive, Locus Standi
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
HR Focus CC
Applicant
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications Regarding Affidavits and Condonation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's supplementary founding and replying affidavit should be admitted or struck out.
- 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late delivery of the applicant's supplementary affidavit.
- 3 Whether the applicant has locus standi to claim Employment Tax Incentive refunds as agent for its clients.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant was granted leave only to deliver a supplementary replying affidavit, not a multi-purpose affidavit combining supplementary founding and replying content. The applicant's supplementary affidavit failed to comply with the court's order and the Uniform Rules of Court, as it was impossible to distinguish which portions supplemented the founding affidavit and which replied to the respondent's answering affidavit. This uncertainty would prejudice the respondent and undermine procedural fairness. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying the admission of the affidavit and noted that the pending Tax Appeal Court proceedings could materially affect...
Court Disposition
The respondent's application to strike out is granted; the applicant's supplementary founding and replying affidavit is struck out in its entirety. The applicant's interlocutory application for condonation and leave to supplement is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the respondent on a party and party scale, including...
Orders
- The respondent's application to strike out, dated 17 July 2023, is granted, and the applicant's supplementary founding affidavit and replying affidavit to the respondent's supplementary answering affidavit is struck out in its entirety.
- The applicant's interlocutory application, dated 21 July 2023, is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment