J.J.O.S v C.E.S (2019/38649) [2025] ZAGPJHC 224 (28 February 2025)

J.J.O.S v C.E.S (2019/38649) [2025] ZAGPJHC 224 (28 February 2025)

The court found that, although the explanation for the delay in filing the affidavits was barely acceptable, the interests of justice required that all relevant facts be considered in the main and counterapplication. The applicant's previous attorneys and the applicant himself were primarily responsible for the delay, but the applicant's conduct was not intentionally dilatory. The court exercised its discretion to grant condonation for the late filing of both affidavits. Regarding costs, the court held that the respondent was entitled to require the applicant to justify condonation but declined to award punitive costs, finding that the circumstances did not warrant such an order. Costs...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 224
Parties
Applicant: J.J.O.S; Respondent: C.E.S
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Case Number
2019/38649
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Affidavits in Main and Counterapplication
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit in the main application and answering affidavit in the counterapplication is granted. Costs are awarded against the applicant on the ordinary scale.
Judges
A Mitchell
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavits, Judicial Discretion, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Affidavits Judicial Discretion Costs Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.J.O.S

Applicant

C.E.S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Affidavits in Main and Counterapplication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's late filing of the replying affidavit in the main application and answering affidavit in the counterapplication should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable and sufficient.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order against the applicant is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the explanation for the delay in filing the affidavits was barely acceptable, the interests of justice required that all relevant facts be considered in the main and counterapplication. The applicant's previous attorneys and the applicant himself were primarily responsible for the delay, but the applicant's conduct was not intentionally dilatory. The court exercised its discretion to grant condonation for the late filing of both affidavits. Regarding costs, the court held that the respondent was entitled to require the applicant to justify condonation but declined to award punitive costs, finding that the circumstances did not warrant such an order. Costs...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit in the main application and answering affidavit in the counterapplication is granted. Costs are awarded against the applicant on the ordinary scale.

Orders

  • The late service and filing of the applicant's replying affidavit in the main application, deposed to on 18 January 2024 and served on 19 January 2024, is hereby condoned.
  • The late service and filing of the applicant's answering affidavit in the counterapplication, deposed to on 21 November 2023 and served on 10 January 2024, is hereby condoned.