Nel v Ramwell t/a Ramwell Attorneys (18171/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 28 (1 March 2019)

Nel v Ramwell t/a Ramwell Attorneys (18171/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 28 (1 March 2019)

The application was dismissed because the material disputes of fact between the parties could not be resolved on the papers alone. The applicant's belated request for referral to oral evidence was refused, as such applications must be made in limine and no exceptional circumstances were shown. The factual disputes were wide-ranging and required full ventilation at trial. The respondent's version was not so implausible or untenable as to be rejected on the papers, and the applicant had elected to proceed by way of motion proceedings despite being alerted to the inappropriateness of this procedure. The court held that the proper course was for the disputes to be resolved through the...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Sharon Beverly Nel; Respondent: Dalita Ramwell t/a Ramwell Attorneys
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2019
Case Number
18171/2018
Procedural Posture
Motion Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.A. Meyer
Legal Topics
Disputed Facts in Motion Proceedings, Mandate Contract, Payment to Wrong Party, Referral to Oral Evidence, Cybercrime in Property Transfer
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Disputed Facts in Motion Proceedings Mandate Contract Payment to Wrong Party Referral to Oral Evidence Cybercrime in Property Transfer

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Beverly Nel

Applicant

Dalita Ramwell t/a Ramwell Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed facts in the motion proceedings can be resolved on the papers alone.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged her obligations under the contract of mandate by paying the sale proceeds to the account provided.
  3. 3 Whether a tacit term existed requiring the applicant to ensure the security of her electronic communications.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the material disputes of fact between the parties could not be resolved on the papers alone. The applicant's belated request for referral to oral evidence was refused, as such applications must be made in limine and no exceptional circumstances were shown. The factual disputes were wide-ranging and required full ventilation at trial. The respondent's version was not so implausible or untenable as to be rejected on the papers, and the applicant had elected to proceed by way of motion proceedings despite being alerted to the inappropriateness of this procedure. The court held that the proper course was for the disputes to be resolved through the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.