Mokgotho Building Construction CC and Another v Iliad Africa Trading (Pty) Ltd (446/2013) [2019] ZALMPPHC 62 (27 November 2019)

Mokgotho Building Construction CC and Another v Iliad Africa Trading (Pty) Ltd (446/2013) [2019] ZALMPPHC 62 (27 November 2019)

The applicants' challenge to the authority of the deponent to the respondent's answering affidavit is misconceived. The law does not require a deponent to be authorised to depose to an affidavit; rather, the authority must relate to the institution and prosecution of the proceedings. The applicants failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 7(1) to challenge authority and instead raised the issue for the first time in their replying affidavit. As such, their point in limine lacks merit and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZALMPPHC 62
Parties
Applicant: Mokgotho Building Construction CC; Applicant: Mboyeng Thomas Mokgotho; Respondent: Iliad Africa Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2019
Case Number
446/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rescission Application Following Default Judgment
Outcome
The applicants' point in limine regarding lack of authority is dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.
Judges
MF. Kganyago
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Authority of Deponent, Rule 7 1 Uniform Rules, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Authority of Deponent Rule 7 1 Uniform Rules Default Judgment

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokgotho Building Construction CC

Applicant

Mboyeng Thomas Mokgotho

Applicant

Iliad Africa Trading (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rescission Application Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to challenge the authority of the deponent to the respondent's answering affidavit in their replying affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' point in limine regarding lack of authority has merit.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' challenge to the authority of the deponent to the respondent's answering affidavit is misconceived. The law does not require a deponent to be authorised to depose to an affidavit; rather, the authority must relate to the institution and prosecution of the proceedings. The applicants failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 7(1) to challenge authority and instead raised the issue for the first time in their replying affidavit. As such, their point in limine lacks merit and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

The applicants' point in limine regarding lack of authority is dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • The applicants' point in limine of lack of authority is dismissed with costs on party and party scale.