Loader and Another v Hamer (1/2009) [2009] ZAECGHC 83 (26 November 2009)

Loader and Another v Hamer (1/2009) [2009] ZAECGHC 83 (26 November 2009)

The court found that genuine disputes of fact exist regarding the alleged harassment, as the respondent provided detailed counter-versions rather than bare denials. The applicants' allegations, while serious, were not uncontested, and the requirements for a restraining interdict—particularly ongoing injury and reasonable apprehension of future harm—were not clearly established on the papers alone. The court exercised its discretion to refer the matter for oral evidence to resolve the factual disputes. Portions of the applicants' affidavits containing inadmissible hearsay, new matter, or vexatious material were struck out. Costs occasioned by the application to strike out were awarded...

Citation
[2009] ZAECGHC 83
Parties
Applicant: Gary Clive Loader; Applicant: Loraine Fleur Campbell; Respondent: Dirk Hamer
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Case Number
1/2009
Procedural Posture
Interdict Application / Postponed for Oral Evidence
Outcome
Application postponed for oral evidence; portions of affidavits struck out; costs of strike out application awarded against applicants.
Judges
SMITH
Legal Topics
Interdict, Harassment, Dispute of Fact, Oral Evidence, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interdict Harassment Dispute of Fact Oral Evidence 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Clive Loader

Applicant

Loraine Fleur Campbell

Applicant

Dirk Hamer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interdict Application / Postponed for Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent harassed the applicants as alleged in the founding affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for a restraining interdict.
  3. 3 Whether disputed facts require referral to oral evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that genuine disputes of fact exist regarding the alleged harassment, as the respondent provided detailed counter-versions rather than bare denials. The applicants' allegations, while serious, were not uncontested, and the requirements for a restraining interdict—particularly ongoing injury and reasonable apprehension of future harm—were not clearly established on the papers alone. The court exercised its discretion to refer the matter for oral evidence to resolve the factual disputes. Portions of the applicants' affidavits containing inadmissible hearsay, new matter, or vexatious material were struck out. Costs occasioned by the application to strike out were awarded...

Court Disposition

Application postponed for oral evidence; portions of affidavits struck out; costs of strike out application awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The application is postponed to a date to be arranged with the Registrar for the hearing of viva voce evidence.
  • The founding, answering and replying affidavits shall serve as pleadings.