Montana v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-047735) [2025] ZAGPPHC 749 (21 July 2025)

Montana v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-047735) [2025] ZAGPPHC 749 (21 July 2025)

The applicant failed to file his answering affidavit together with the condonation application, making it impossible for the court to assess the full period of non-compliance or whether a bona fide defence exists. The lapse of more than a year since the due date for the answering affidavit indicates a lack of diligence and an attempt to delay proceedings. The interests of justice do not favour granting condonation in the absence of the answering affidavit. The strike out application is justified as the identified paragraphs in the replying affidavit are scandalous, vexatious, and irrelevant, causing prejudice and reputational harm to SARS. The applicant's conduct warrants a punitive cost...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 749
Parties
Applicant: Tshepo Lucky Montana; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Case Number
2023-047735
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation and Strike Out in Sequestration Proceedings
Outcome
The strike out application is granted in respect of the identified paragraphs in the replying affidavit. The applicant's condonation application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel on a punitive scale.
Judges
Labuschagne
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Sequestration Proceedings, Strike Out Application, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Tax Law Condonation for Late Filing Sequestration Proceedings Strike Out Application Punitive Costs

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

Parties

Tshepo Lucky Montana

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation and Strike Out in Sequestration Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the late filing of his answering affidavit in the sequestration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an answering affidavit precludes the granting of condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the strike out application in respect of objectionable matter in the replying affidavit should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to file his answering affidavit together with the condonation application, making it impossible for the court to assess the full period of non-compliance or whether a bona fide defence exists. The lapse of more than a year since the due date for the answering affidavit indicates a lack of diligence and an attempt to delay proceedings. The interests of justice do not favour granting condonation in the absence of the answering affidavit. The strike out application is justified as the identified paragraphs in the replying affidavit are scandalous, vexatious, and irrelevant, causing prejudice and reputational harm to SARS. The applicant's conduct warrants a punitive cost...

Court Disposition

The strike out application is granted in respect of the identified paragraphs in the replying affidavit. The applicant's condonation application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel on a punitive scale.

Orders

  • The strike out application is granted in respect of paragraphs 20, 28.5, 29.4, 33, 38, 41, and 42 of the applicant's replying affidavit.
  • The costs of the strike out application are to be paid on a punitive scale of attorney and client, including the costs of two counsel, Scale C, where so employed.