Maree N.O and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (6038/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 27 (2 February 2024)

Maree N.O and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (6038/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 27 (2 February 2024)

The court found that the applicants' application for postponement or striking off the roll was not bona fide and constituted a tactical manoeuvre to delay adjudication of the main application. The applicants failed to provide sufficient or reasonable explanations for their delay in filing answering affidavits, despite having ample information and legal representation. The Bank was entitled to set the matter down on the unopposed roll, and its conduct was not malicious. The applicants' vague and shifting explanations, coupled with their failure to play open cards, justified the imposition of a punitive costs order. The court exercised its discretion to grant the postponement with...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 27
Parties
Applicant: Deon Cornelius Maree N.O.; Applicant: Johanna Gertruida Maree N.O.; Applicant: Petrus Johannes Uys N.O.; Applicant: Goldensands 31 Trading CC; Respondent: Standard Bank of SA Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2024
Case Number
6038/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Postponement and Costs Order; Main Application Postponed to Opposed Roll
Outcome
Postponement of the main application granted with structured timeframes; applicants ordered to pay wasted costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
JP Daffue
Legal Topics
Postponement of Proceedings, Attorney and Client Costs, Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Delay Tactics, Condonation, Opposed Motion Roll
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Postponement of Proceedings Attorney and Client Costs Settlement Agreement Enforcement Delay Tactics Condonation Opposed Motion Roll

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

Parties

Deon Cornelius Maree N.O.

Applicant

Johanna Gertruida Maree N.O.

Applicant

Petrus Johannes Uys N.O.

Applicant

Goldensands 31 Trading CC

Applicant

Standard Bank of SA Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Postponement and Costs Order; Main Application Postponed to Opposed Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to a postponement of the main application and/or to have it struck from the roll.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents provided bona fide and sufficient reasons for failing to file answering affidavits timeously.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondents warranted a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' application for postponement or striking off the roll was not bona fide and constituted a tactical manoeuvre to delay adjudication of the main application. The applicants failed to provide sufficient or reasonable explanations for their delay in filing answering affidavits, despite having ample information and legal representation. The Bank was entitled to set the matter down on the unopposed roll, and its conduct was not malicious. The applicants' vague and shifting explanations, coupled with their failure to play open cards, justified the imposition of a punitive costs order. The court exercised its discretion to grant the postponement with...

Court Disposition

Postponement of the main application granted with structured timeframes; applicants ordered to pay wasted costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The main application is postponed to the opposed roll of 14 March 2024.
  • Applicants (respondents in the main application) shall file answering affidavits by 14 February 2024.