Nedbank Limited v Ramparsad and Another (58806/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 746 (4 November 2021)

Nedbank Limited v Ramparsad and Another (58806/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 746 (4 November 2021)

The Court found that the first respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the supplementary affidavit and did not substantiate the new evidence presented. The so-called forensic audit was unsupported, inadmissible, and irrelevant to the Rule 46A application, as the monetary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 746
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Dinah Ramparsad; Respondent: Rozan Ruth Ramparsad
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2021
Case Number
58806/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Condonation and Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit Under Rule 6(5)(e)
Outcome
The application for condonation and leave to file a further supplementary affidavit was dismissed.
Judges
R G Tolmay
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Filing, Supplementary Affidavit, Abuse of Process, Rule 46a Procedure
Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Filing Supplementary Affidavit Abuse of Process Rule 46a Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Applicant

Dinah Ramparsad

Respondent

Rozan Ruth Ramparsad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Condonation and Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit Under Rule 6(5)(e)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent has provided sufficient grounds for condonation of the late filing of a supplementary affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to file a further supplementary affidavit in terms of Rule 6(5)(e).
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer prejudice if further affidavits are allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the first respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the supplementary affidavit and did not substantiate the new evidence presented. The so-called forensic audit was unsupported, inadmissible, and irrelevant to the Rule 46A application, as the monetary judgment had already been granted and not rescinded. The respondent's reliance on the National Lockdown was unconvincing, as no details were provided to justify the delay. The respondent's conduct in filing multiple affidavits without leave and seeking to introduce further affidavits amounted to an abuse of process, causing undue delay and prejudice to the applicant. The applicant is...

Court Disposition

The application for condonation and leave to file a further supplementary affidavit was dismissed.

Orders

  • The first respondent's application for condonation and leave to file a further supplementary affidavit is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the first respondent on an attorney and client scale.