McHendry v Greef and Another (14231/14) [2015] ZAKZDHC 76 (17 September 2015)

McHendry v Greef and Another (14231/14) [2015] ZAKZDHC 76 (17 September 2015)

The court granted condonation for the late filing of the respondents' supplementary affidavit, finding the reasons advanced acceptable and no prejudice to the applicant. The application to strike out the respondents' affidavits was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove the contents were scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant, and the respondents' affidavits met the requirements of Rule 6(15). On the main application for contempt of court, the applicant failed to prove any transgressions of the court order beyond reasonable doubt, relying on vague, unsubstantiated, and hearsay evidence. The only admissible evidence related to alleged assault predating the order. The court refused to...

Citation
[2015] ZAKZDHC 76
Parties
Applicant: Peter McHendry; Respondent: Wynand Louw Greeff; Respondent: Rensche Greeff
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2015
Case Number
14231/14
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion
Outcome
All applications brought by the applicant are dismissed except for the respondents' condonation application, which is granted. Costs are awarded against the applicant on a party and party scale.
Judges
Marks AJ
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Condonation, Striking Out Affidavit, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Condonation Striking Out Affidavit 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter McHendry

Applicant

Wynand Louw Greeff

Respondent

Rensche Greeff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the respondents' supplementary affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' answering and confirmatory affidavits should be struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the court order granted on 27 September 2013.

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted condonation for the late filing of the respondents' supplementary affidavit, finding the reasons advanced acceptable and no prejudice to the applicant. The application to strike out the respondents' affidavits was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove the contents were scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant, and the respondents' affidavits met the requirements of Rule 6(15). On the main application for contempt of court, the applicant failed to prove any transgressions of the court order beyond reasonable doubt, relying on vague, unsubstantiated, and hearsay evidence. The only admissible evidence related to alleged assault predating the order. The court refused to...

Court Disposition

All applications brought by the applicant are dismissed except for the respondents' condonation application, which is granted. Costs are awarded against the applicant on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the respondents' affidavit is granted.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the costs of the respondents' application for condonation.