Knipe and Others v Lotz and Others (5081/2014, 4817/2014) [2016] ZAFSHC 21 (11 February 2016)

Knipe and Others v Lotz and Others (5081/2014, 4817/2014) [2016] ZAFSHC 21 (11 February 2016)

The court found that while the date for the hearing of the applications for leave to appeal was not suitable to all parties and the Applicants were not consulted, this did not render the notices of set-down irregular under Rule 30 or Rule 49(1)(d). The registrar's involvement was not strictly in accordance with the rules, but the Applicants were informed of the date and could have sought a postponement. The Applicants failed to act expeditiously and contributed to the delay and inconvenience. The court exercised its discretion against granting relief under Rule 30, holding that any prejudice suffered was cured by the subsequent postponement. The application was dismissed, and costs were...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 21
Parties
Applicant: JDJ Knipe; Applicant: ABJ Knipe; Applicant: JMD Vigne; Respondent: Carol Jessie Kathleen Lotz; Respondent: Robert Petrus Jansen Knipe; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: OA Noordman NO; Respondent: CB St Clair Cooper NO; Respondent: SM Rampororo NO
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2016
Case Number
5081/2014, 4817/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application in Terms of Rule 30 to Set Aside Notices of Set Down in Applications for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application in terms of Rule 30 dismissed. Costs awarded against the Applicants. Wasted costs of postponement apportioned as per order.
Judges
G.J.M. Wright
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Irregular Steps, Rule 49 Set Down, Practice Rule 16, Costs Order, Postponement, Leave to Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Irregular Steps Rule 49 Set Down Practice Rule 16 Costs Order Postponement Leave to Appeal Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JDJ Knipe

Applicant

ABJ Knipe

Applicant

JMD Vigne

Applicant

Carol Jessie Kathleen Lotz

Respondent

Robert Petrus Jansen Knipe

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

OA Noordman NO

Respondent

CB St Clair Cooper NO

Respondent

SM Rampororo NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application in Terms of Rule 30 to Set Aside Notices of Set Down in Applications for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices of set-down in the applications for leave to appeal were irregular steps under Rule 30.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to arrange a suitable date for all parties rendered the set-down notices irregular.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants suffered prejudice due to the manner of set-down.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the date for the hearing of the applications for leave to appeal was not suitable to all parties and the Applicants were not consulted, this did not render the notices of set-down irregular under Rule 30 or Rule 49(1)(d). The registrar's involvement was not strictly in accordance with the rules, but the Applicants were informed of the date and could have sought a postponement. The Applicants failed to act expeditiously and contributed to the delay and inconvenience. The court exercised its discretion against granting relief under Rule 30, holding that any prejudice suffered was cured by the subsequent postponement. The application was dismissed, and costs were...

Court Disposition

Application in terms of Rule 30 dismissed. Costs awarded against the Applicants. Wasted costs of postponement apportioned as per order.

Orders

  • The application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed.
  • The Applicants are to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of opposition by the provisional liquidators of Kameelhoek (Pty) Ltd and Schaapplaatz 978 (Pty) Ltd.