Lessing v Quanza Holdings (PTY) LTD (2362/2018) [2019] ZAECMHC 10 (26 February 2019)

Lessing v Quanza Holdings (PTY) LTD (2362/2018) [2019] ZAECMHC 10 (26 February 2019)

The court found that the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the need to file a supplementary affidavit, based on new developments after the initial affidavit was filed, including eviction proceedings and summons from the executrix of the estate. The circumstances were deemed extraordinary and justified the augmentation of the applicant's bona fide defence. The respondent's reliance on rule 6(5)(e) was misplaced, as the rule allows for further affidavits at the court's discretion in appropriate cases. In the interest of justice, the applicant was granted leave to file the supplementary affidavit. The applicant, seeking the court's indulgence, was ordered to pay the...

Citation
[2019] ZAECMHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Quentin Lessing; Respondent: Quanza Holdings (PTY) LTD
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2019
Case Number
2362/2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit in Opposition to Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; applicant permitted to file supplementary affidavit; applicant to pay respondent's costs.
Judges
Ndamase
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Supplementary Affidavit, Bona Fide Defence, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Supplementary Affidavit Bona Fide Defence Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quentin Lessing

Applicant

Quanza Holdings (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit in Opposition to Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit in opposition to the summary judgment application.
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances justify the filing of a further affidavit under rule 6(5)(e).
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the need to file a supplementary affidavit, based on new developments after the initial affidavit was filed, including eviction proceedings and summons from the executrix of the estate. The circumstances were deemed extraordinary and justified the augmentation of the applicant's bona fide defence. The respondent's reliance on rule 6(5)(e) was misplaced, as the rule allows for further affidavits at the court's discretion in appropriate cases. In the interest of justice, the applicant was granted leave to file the supplementary affidavit. The applicant, seeking the court's indulgence, was ordered to pay the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; applicant permitted to file supplementary affidavit; applicant to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to deliver a supplementary affidavit in pursuit of his opposition to the summary judgment launched against him by the respondent.
  • The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs, such costs to include the respondent’s costs of opposition.