Pule v Erf 1083 Rooihuiskraal (Pty) Ltd (45664/2007) [2017] ZAGPPHC 584 (12 September 2017)

Pule v Erf 1083 Rooihuiskraal (Pty) Ltd (45664/2007) [2017] ZAGPPHC 584 (12 September 2017)

The court held that the discretion to allow further affidavits under Rule 6(5)(e) must be exercised in the interests of justice. In this case, the respondent failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice that would result from the admission of the additional affidavit. The court found that the adjudicating court in the rescission application would be better placed to determine whether the affidavit introduces new matter and to address any prejudice or costs issues. Accordingly, the applicant was granted leave to file the additional affidavit, with timelines for the respondent's answer and the applicant's reply, and costs to be costs in the cause.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 584
Parties
Applicant: Linda Kenneth Masike Pule; Respondent: Erf 1083 Rooihuiskraal (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Case Number
45664/2007
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to File Further Affidavit in Interlocutory Rescission Proceedings
Outcome
Application granted; leave to file further affidavit allowed.
Judges
Mothle
Legal Topics
Rule 6 Affidavits, Interlocutory Application, Rescission of Judgment, Leave to File Further Affidavit
Civil Procedure Rule 6 Affidavits Interlocutory Application Rescission of Judgment Leave to File Further Affidavit

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Kenneth Masike Pule

Applicant

Erf 1083 Rooihuiskraal (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to File Further Affidavit in Interlocutory Rescission Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a further affidavit in terms of Rule 6(5)(e).
  2. 2 Whether the filing of the further affidavit would cause prejudice or injustice to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the admission of the additional affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the discretion to allow further affidavits under Rule 6(5)(e) must be exercised in the interests of justice. In this case, the respondent failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice that would result from the admission of the additional affidavit. The court found that the adjudicating court in the rescission application would be better placed to determine whether the affidavit introduces new matter and to address any prejudice or costs issues. Accordingly, the applicant was granted leave to file the additional affidavit, with timelines for the respondent's answer and the applicant's reply, and costs to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application granted; leave to file further affidavit allowed.

Orders

  • The application to file an additional affidavit in terms of Rule 6(5)(e) is granted.
  • Within 10 days after the filing of the additional affidavit, the respondent may file an answer thereto.