Mahlatsi and Another v Kelbrick and Others (96026/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 324 (4 May 2018)

Mahlatsi and Another v Kelbrick and Others (96026/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 324 (4 May 2018)

The court found that the applicants failed to properly serve the first, third, and fourth respondents, yet those respondents filed notices of intention to defend and opposition to the amendment. The application was poorly drafted and lacked clarity regarding the parties against whom relief was sought. The withdrawal of the action against certain respondents was not clearly communicated, resulting in unnecessary costs and proceedings. The application was dismissed against the first and second respondents with costs, and struck off the roll against the third respondent with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 324
Parties
Applicant: David Mahlatsi; Applicant: BMW Employees' Surplus Fund; Respondent: Anthony R Kelbrick; Respondent: Alexander Forbes Financial Services; Respondent: BMW Pension Fund; Respondent: BMW Pension Fund Board of Trustees
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2018
Case Number
96026/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Irregular Step Under Rule 30 a
Outcome
Application dismissed against the first and second respondents with costs; application against the third respondent struck off the roll with costs.
Judges
MIA
Legal Topics
Irregular Step, Rule 30a, Service of Process, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Irregular Step Rule 30a Service of Process Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Mahlatsi

Applicant

BMW Employees' Surplus Fund

Applicant

Anthony R Kelbrick

Respondent

Alexander Forbes Financial Services

Respondent

BMW Pension Fund

Respondent

BMW Pension Fund Board of Trustees

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Irregular Step Under Rule 30 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices of intention to defend and opposition to amendment filed by the first, third, and fourth respondents constituted irregular steps due to lack of service.
  2. 2 Whether the application against the second respondent was necessary and justified.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicants for poor drafting and unnecessary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to properly serve the first, third, and fourth respondents, yet those respondents filed notices of intention to defend and opposition to the amendment. The application was poorly drafted and lacked clarity regarding the parties against whom relief was sought. The withdrawal of the action against certain respondents was not clearly communicated, resulting in unnecessary costs and proceedings. The application was dismissed against the first and second respondents with costs, and struck off the roll against the third respondent with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed against the first and second respondents with costs; application against the third respondent struck off the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed against the first and second respondent with costs.
  • The application against the third respondent in terms of Rule 30A is struck off the roll with costs.