Radebe and Another v Apple Plastic (SA) (Pty) Ltd t/a Apple-Tec and Others (36535/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 550 (25 July 2014)

Radebe and Another v Apple Plastic (SA) (Pty) Ltd t/a Apple-Tec and Others (36535/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 550 (25 July 2014)

The court found that service on the second applicant was properly effected at its registered office as per the Certificate of Confirmation from CIPRO and Rule 4(1)(a)(v) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The first applicant, although not formally served, was aware of the urgent application through circumstantial evidence, including a letter from the second respondent, his presence at court during the hearing, and a telephone conversation regarding the application. The court held that Rule 6(12)(c) provides relief only to a party who was both absent and unaware of the proceedings. Since the first applicant was aware of the application and present at court, he was not entitled to...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 550
Parties
Applicant: Wesley Jabulani Radebe; Applicant: Gageni Trade and Invest 111 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Apple Plastic (SA) (Pty) Ltd t/a Apple-Tec; Respondent: Muteto Mabasa; Respondent: Fibre Glass Moulding CC t/a Fibre Glass Shop; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited; Respondent: Gerhardt Van Deventer
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2014
Case Number
36535/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Urgent Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, the one paying the other to be absolved.
Judges
P.M. Mabuse
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Rule 6 12 C, Registered Office, Absence in Urgent Application
Civil Procedure Service of Process Rule 6 12 C Registered Office Absence in Urgent Application

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

Parties

Wesley Jabulani Radebe

Applicant

Gageni Trade and Invest 111 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Apple Plastic (SA) (Pty) Ltd t/a Apple-Tec

Respondent

Muteto Mabasa

Respondent

Fibre Glass Moulding CC t/a Fibre Glass Shop

Respondent

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Gerhardt Van Deventer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Urgent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were properly served with the urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the first applicant was absent and unaware of the urgent application when the order was granted.
  3. 3 Whether service at the registered office of the second applicant was effective under Rule 4(1)(a)(v).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that service on the second applicant was properly effected at its registered office as per the Certificate of Confirmation from CIPRO and Rule 4(1)(a)(v) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The first applicant, although not formally served, was aware of the urgent application through circumstantial evidence, including a letter from the second respondent, his presence at court during the hearing, and a telephone conversation regarding the application. The court held that Rule 6(12)(c) provides relief only to a party who was both absent and unaware of the proceedings. Since the first applicant was aware of the application and present at court, he was not entitled to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, the one paying the other to be absolved.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, the one paying the other to be absolved.