Multopro Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Windsorton and Monte Leo Partnership and Others (2750/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 64 (6 June 2017)

Multopro Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Windsorton and Monte Leo Partnership and Others (2750/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 64 (6 June 2017)

The court found that the respondents had failed to comply with the rules by not filing opposing affidavits within the prescribed period and had not provided a substantive or timely application for postponement. The request for postponement was made at the last minute without sufficient explanation, indicating a disregard for the rules and a tactical attempt to delay proceedings. The court held that the respondents were not deprived of their constitutional right of access to court, as their conduct amounted to an abuse of process. The application for postponement was refused, and the orders sought by the applicants were granted.

Citation
[2017] ZANCHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Multopro Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Gabriel Achebe Iweka; Respondent: Windsorton & Monte Leo Partnership; Respondent: Rauties Diamond; Respondent: EB Diamonds CC; Respondent: Sparax Trading 144 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2017
Case Number
2750/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Postponement and Subsequent Refusal; Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for postponement refused; orders granted as per applicants' notice of motion.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Postponement of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Access to Court, Costs in Liquidation
Civil Procedure Postponement of Proceedings Abuse of Process Access to Court Costs in Liquidation

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multopro Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gabriel Achebe Iweka

Applicant

Windsorton & Monte Leo Partnership

Respondent

Rauties Diamond

Respondent

EB Diamonds CC

Respondent

Sparax Trading 144 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Postponement and Subsequent Refusal; Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to a postponement to file opposing affidavits.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of postponement infringed the respondents' constitutional right of access to court under section 34.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had failed to comply with the rules by not filing opposing affidavits within the prescribed period and had not provided a substantive or timely application for postponement. The request for postponement was made at the last minute without sufficient explanation, indicating a disregard for the rules and a tactical attempt to delay proceedings. The court held that the respondents were not deprived of their constitutional right of access to court, as their conduct amounted to an abuse of process. The application for postponement was refused, and the orders sought by the applicants were granted.

Court Disposition

Application for postponement refused; orders granted as per applicants' notice of motion.

Orders

  • The application for postponement is refused.
  • The first respondent is wound up.