Nel and Another v Sello and Others (86558/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 111 (29 March 2016)

Nel and Another v Sello and Others (86558/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 111 (29 March 2016)

The court found that second applicant's replying affidavit was an irregular step as it was not accompanied by a founding affidavit nor did it incorporate the founding affidavit of the first applicant. The procedural requirements of the Uniform Rules of Court were not met, and the replying affidavit was set aside. Regarding the joinder application, sixth respondent failed to file an answering affidavit as directed by the court, leaving the founding affidavit uncontroverted. The joinder application therefore succeeded. Costs were awarded against the unsuccessful parties in each application: second applicant to pay costs of the Rule 30 application, and sixth respondent to pay costs of the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 111
Parties
Applicant: Willem Petrus Nel; Applicant: Afriforum NPC; Respondent: Sello; Respondent: Thabo; Respondent: Khutso; Respondent: Happy Skohosana; Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers (The remaining extent of farm Bultfontein 107); Respondent: The Commanding Officer: Hammanskraal Police Station; Respondent: The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The Minister: Human Settlements; Respondent: The Minister of Police; Respondent: Plastic Pack (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Universal Pulse Trading 367 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2016
Case Number
86558/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Main, Rule 30, and Joinder Applications
Outcome
Second applicant's replying affidavit is set aside; joinder application succeeds; costs awarded as per orders.
Judges
Msimeki
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Rule 30 Irregular Step, Costs Award, Locus Standi, State Liability Act
Civil Procedure Land and Property Joinder of Parties Rule 30 Irregular Step Costs Award Locus Standi State Liability Act

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Petrus Nel

Applicant

Afriforum NPC

Applicant

Sello

Respondent

Thabo

Respondent

Khutso

Respondent

Happy Skohosana

Respondent

The Unlawful Occupiers (The remaining extent of farm Bultfontein 107)

Respondent

The Commanding Officer: Hammanskraal Police Station

Respondent

The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The Minister: Human Settlements

Respondent

The Minister of Police

Respondent

Plastic Pack (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Universal Pulse Trading 367 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Main, Rule 30, and Joinder Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether second applicant's replying affidavit constitutes an irregular step and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the joinder application for ninth, tenth, and eleventh respondents should succeed.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the Rule 30 and joinder applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that second applicant's replying affidavit was an irregular step as it was not accompanied by a founding affidavit nor did it incorporate the founding affidavit of the first applicant. The procedural requirements of the Uniform Rules of Court were not met, and the replying affidavit was set aside. Regarding the joinder application, sixth respondent failed to file an answering affidavit as directed by the court, leaving the founding affidavit uncontroverted. The joinder application therefore succeeded. Costs were awarded against the unsuccessful parties in each application: second applicant to pay costs of the Rule 30 application, and sixth respondent to pay costs of the...

Court Disposition

Second applicant's replying affidavit is set aside; joinder application succeeds; costs awarded as per orders.

Orders

  • Second applicant's replying affidavit is set aside.
  • Second applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the Rule 30 application.