Jenkinson v Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd (3321/11) [2015] ZAECPEHC 7 (17 February 2015)

Jenkinson v Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd (3321/11) [2015] ZAECPEHC 7 (17 February 2015)

The court found that all grounds raised by the applicant were procedural flaws that could have been cured by directives or postponement, and did not constitute bona fide defences or triable issues. The technical objection regarding attorney registration was minor and not dispositive. The affidavit supporting summary judgment was sufficient in substance, and any defect could be cured by reference to other documents. The premature issue of the summons by one day was not raised at the summary judgment stage and, even if successful, would not have affected the respondent's ability to reapply for summary judgment. The applicant had no prospects of success on appeal, and the delay in filing was...

Citation
[2015] ZAECPEHC 7
Parties
Applicant: Dennis Clifford Jenkinson; Respondent: Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2015
Case Number
3321/11
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for condonation and application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Condonation, Attorney Registration, Affidavit Verification, Procedural Irregularity
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Condonation Attorney Registration Affidavit Verification Procedural Irregularity

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Clifford Jenkinson

Applicant

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the summary judgment handed down in favour of the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's summons was fatally defective due to being signed by an attorney registered in another province.
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit supporting summary judgment complied with Uniform Rule 32(2).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all grounds raised by the applicant were procedural flaws that could have been cured by directives or postponement, and did not constitute bona fide defences or triable issues. The technical objection regarding attorney registration was minor and not dispositive. The affidavit supporting summary judgment was sufficient in substance, and any defect could be cured by reference to other documents. The premature issue of the summons by one day was not raised at the summary judgment stage and, even if successful, would not have affected the respondent's ability to reapply for summary judgment. The applicant had no prospects of success on appeal, and the delay in filing was...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.