Nedbank Limited v Ntshangase (2022/027021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 308 (19 March 2025)

Nedbank Limited v Ntshangase (2022/027021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 308 (19 March 2025)

The court found that both parties were equally to blame for the matter not being ripe for hearing. The applicant failed to enroll the condonation application separately, which could have compelled the respondent to act sooner. The respondent, however, delayed filing its notice of opposition and answering affidavit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 308
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Mbulelo Simon Ntshangase
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2025
Case Number
2022/027021
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Postponement Due to Interlocutory Condonation Application Not Ripe for Hearing
Outcome
The summary judgment application is postponed sine die with no order as to costs.
Judges
Stylianou
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Condonation, Uniform Rules of Court, Costs Order, Case Management
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Condonation Uniform Rules of Court Costs Order Case Management

Source-derived case record

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

Nedbank Limited

Applicant

Mbulelo Simon Ntshangase

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Postponement Due to Interlocutory Condonation Application Not Ripe for Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgment application could proceed in light of the pending condonation application.
  2. 2 Who should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.
  3. 3 Whether the parties complied with case management requirements including CaseLines loading and joint practice note.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties were equally to blame for the matter not being ripe for hearing. The applicant failed to enroll the condonation application separately, which could have compelled the respondent to act sooner. The respondent, however, delayed filing its notice of opposition and answering affidavit for an unreasonable period of ten months. The absence of a joint practice note was not attributable to the applicant, as correspondence showed attempts to engage the respondent. The court declined to make a finding regarding the CaseLines issue due to lack of expert evidence. Ultimately, the summary judgment application could not proceed because the condonation application was...

Court Disposition

The summary judgment application is postponed sine die with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The summary judgment application is postponed sine die.
  • There is no order as to costs.