Makiki v Apostolic Faith Mission of SA Libode Assembly (2027/2011) [2014] ZAECMHC 11 (27 February 2014)

Makiki v Apostolic Faith Mission of SA Libode Assembly (2027/2011) [2014] ZAECMHC 11 (27 February 2014)

The court found that the respondent's conduct in issuing a Rule 30A notice but failing to prosecute it or set it down for hearing was unsatisfactory and contributed to procedural confusion. The applicant was not obliged to set down the respondent's Rule 30A application, and his assumption that the notice had been abandoned was reasonable. The distinction between Rule 30 (irregular proceedings) and Rule 30A (non-compliance with the Rules) was emphasized, and the respondent's reliance on both rules without clarity was criticized. The court held that the application for rescission should be postponed sine die due to the unresolved interlocutory dispute, and the respondent was ordered to pay...

Citation
[2014] ZAECMHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Pastor Mbuyiseli Piet Makiki; Respondent: Apostolic Faith Mission of SA Libode Assembly
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Case Number
2027/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment; Interlocutory Dispute Regarding Rule 30 a Notice
Outcome
The application for rescission is postponed sine die. The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs for the day.
Judges
M N Hinana
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings, Rule 30a Non Compliance, Notice of Set Down
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings Rule 30a Non Compliance Notice of Set Down

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pastor Mbuyiseli Piet Makiki

Applicant

Apostolic Faith Mission of SA Libode Assembly

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment; Interlocutory Dispute Regarding Rule 30 a Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for rescission of the order dated 13 September 2012 was properly before the court in light of the pending Rule 30A notice.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was obliged to set down the Rule 30A application initiated by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct in failing to prosecute the Rule 30A application affected the progress of the rescission application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's conduct in issuing a Rule 30A notice but failing to prosecute it or set it down for hearing was unsatisfactory and contributed to procedural confusion. The applicant was not obliged to set down the respondent's Rule 30A application, and his assumption that the notice had been abandoned was reasonable. The distinction between Rule 30 (irregular proceedings) and Rule 30A (non-compliance with the Rules) was emphasized, and the respondent's reliance on both rules without clarity was criticized. The court held that the application for rescission should be postponed sine die due to the unresolved interlocutory dispute, and the respondent was ordered to pay...

Court Disposition

The application for rescission is postponed sine die. The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs for the day.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is postponed sine die.
  • The respondent is directed to pay today's wasted costs.