Mnisi v Nhlapho (2021/53980) [2024] ZAGPJHC 376 (16 April 2024)

Mnisi v Nhlapho (2021/53980) [2024] ZAGPJHC 376 (16 April 2024)

The court found that, although the preferable procedure is to bring a separate condonation application under Rule 6, the applicant's request for condonation within her replying affidavit was sufficiently clear and understood by the respondent. The respondent suffered no unfairness, and insisting on strict formality would place form above substance and result in inefficiency. The applicant's explanation for the delay was not comprehensive, but the respondent's prejudice was limited to delay in the progression of the main matter, which was not substantial. The applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavit was...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 376
Parties
Applicant: Artwell Mnisi; Respondent: Innocentia Thandeka Nhlapho
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 April 2024
Case Number
2021/53980
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Condonation and Related Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit is granted. The respondent's application to declare the condonation invalid is dismissed. Leave is granted to the respondent and his attorneys to file further affidavits on specified new matters. Costs are awarded as costs in the cause, with...
Judges
I. Green
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavit, Rule 6 Procedure, Striking Out Application, Costs in the Cause
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Affidavit Rule 6 Procedure Striking Out Application Costs in the Cause

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Artwell Mnisi

Applicant

Innocentia Thandeka Nhlapho

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Condonation and Related Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's request for condonation for the late filing of her replying affidavit constitutes a valid condonation application under Rule 6.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's application to strike out should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavit should be granted on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the preferable procedure is to bring a separate condonation application under Rule 6, the applicant's request for condonation within her replying affidavit was sufficiently clear and understood by the respondent. The respondent suffered no unfairness, and insisting on strict formality would place form above substance and result in inefficiency. The applicant's explanation for the delay was not comprehensive, but the respondent's prejudice was limited to delay in the progression of the main matter, which was not substantial. The applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavit was...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit is granted. The respondent's application to declare the condonation invalid is dismissed. Leave is granted to the respondent and his attorneys to file further affidavits on specified new matters. Costs are awarded as costs in the cause, with...

Orders

  • The respondent's application in terms of Rule 30A to declare that the applicant had not applied for condonation is dismissed.
  • There is no order on the merits of the applicant's striking out application.