Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Arendse and Others (2014/5670) [2014] ZAGPJHC 171 (28 May 2014)
The court found that the defendants' explanation for the delay in filing their resisting affidavit was extremely weak and lacked detail regarding their actions during the relevant period. Even if the affidavit were properly before the court, the defendants' prospects of success in resisting summary judgment were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] ZAGPJHC 171
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited; Defendant: Charles Arendse; Defendant: Ronel Arendse; Defendant: Audrey Benita van der Westhuizen; Defendant: Nathan van der Westhuizen
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2014/5670
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment and Condonation for Late Filing of Resisting Affidavit
- Outcome
- Condonation for late filing of the resisting affidavit is refused; summary judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff.
- Judges
- Wright
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavit
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited
Plaintiff
Charles Arendse
Defendant
Ronel Arendse
Defendant
Audrey Benita van der Westhuizen
Defendant
Nathan van der Westhuizen
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment and Condonation for Late Filing of Resisting Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants should be granted condonation for the late filing of their affidavit resisting summary judgment.
- 2 Whether the defendants have prospects of success in resisting summary judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants' explanation for the delay in filing their resisting affidavit was extremely weak and lacked detail regarding their actions during the relevant period. Even if the affidavit were properly before the court, the defendants' prospects of success in resisting summary judgment were considered weak. The combination of an inadequate explanation for the delay and poor prospects on the merits led the court to refuse condonation and grant summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Condonation for late filing of the resisting affidavit is refused; summary judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Orders
- The defendants' application for condonation of the late filing of their affidavit resisting summary judgment is dismissed with costs on the attorney-client scale.
- Summary judgment is granted in terms of the draft marked X.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2014/5670
DATE: 28 MAY 2014
In the matter between:
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED...................................................PLAINTIFF
And
CHARLES ARENDSE.......................................................1ST DEFENDANT
RONEL ARENDSE..........................................................2ND DEFENDANT
AUDREY BENITA VAN DER WESTHUIZEN..................3RD DEFENDANT
NATHAN VAN DER WESTHUIZEN................................4TH DEFENDANT
J U D G M E N T
WRIGHT J
1. The applicant seeks summary judgment against the four defendants.
2. On 30 April 2014 the application was postponed to 28 May 2014, today’s date, at the request of the defendants. The first and fourth defendants were in court on 30 April 2014.
3. Last night, that is 27 May 2014, at about 9pm, a resisting affidavit was served. It is well out of time. Also, an affidavit was served in which condonation was sought for the late filing of the affidavit resisting summary judgment. It does not begin to explain what the defendants did for fifteen days after the last postponement. It contains only the vaguest reference to an excuse for the next eight days. On 23 May 2014, the defendants’ attorney, Mr Dawood was retained. He clearly seems to have done what he could in the time available to him. However, the defendants’ case in explaining their delay is extremely weak. Having had sight of the resisting affidavit with a view to considering the defendants’ prospects of resisting summary judgment even if their resisting affidavit was properly before me, I am of the view that the defendants’ prospects of success on the merits of the summary judgment application are weak. This, coupled with the defendants’ failure to explain their delay in filing their resisting affidavit inclines me to refuse condonation.
Order
1. The defendants’ application for the condonation of the late filing of their affidavit resisting summary judgment is dismissed with costs on the attorney client scale.
2. Summary judgment is granted in terms of the draft marked X.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
Instructed by: Dawood Attorneys
011 942 4350
On behalf of the Defendants:
Instructed by: Mothle Jooma Sabdia
012 362 3137
Dates of Hearing: 28 May 2014
Date of Judgment: