Nadcom Systems (Pty) Ltd v First National Bank Ltd and Another (135/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 50 (9 March 2020)

Nadcom Systems (Pty) Ltd v First National Bank Ltd and Another (135/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 50 (9 March 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency. Although the applicant's accounts were frozen on 8 January 2020, it only served papers on the second respondent on 20 January 2020 without adequate explanation for the delay. The absence of interim relief and the applicant's willingness to postpone the matter further indicated that there was no real urgency or risk of prejudice if the matter proceeded in the ordinary course. The founding affidavit's authority and commissioning issues were noted but not decided, as the application was struck from the roll on the basis of lack of urgency. The court held that the applicant should follow normal court procedures and accordingly...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 50
Parties
Applicant: Nadcom Systems (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: First National Bank Ltd; Respondent: Murray Hendrik Bester
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2020
Case Number
135/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
NS Daniso
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Rule Nisi, Founding Affidavit Authority, Condonation of Non Compliance
Civil Procedure Urgency in Motion Proceedings Rule Nisi Founding Affidavit Authority Condonation of Non Compliance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nadcom Systems (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

First National Bank Ltd

Respondent

Murray Hendrik Bester

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and justified deviation from normal court rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for delay in serving papers.
  3. 3 Whether the founding affidavit was properly commissioned and the deponent had authority.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency. Although the applicant's accounts were frozen on 8 January 2020, it only served papers on the second respondent on 20 January 2020 without adequate explanation for the delay. The absence of interim relief and the applicant's willingness to postpone the matter further indicated that there was no real urgency or risk of prejudice if the matter proceeded in the ordinary course. The founding affidavit's authority and commissioning issues were noted but not decided, as the application was struck from the roll on the basis of lack of urgency. The court held that the applicant should follow normal court procedures and accordingly...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.