Roberts NO v Brian Kahn Inc and Others (08393/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 315 (18 November 2016)

Roberts NO v Brian Kahn Inc and Others (08393/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 315 (18 November 2016)

The applicant, as principal debtor, has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the action and his rights may be adversely affected by the judgment. He satisfies the requirements for intervention both under Rule 12 and the common law, having demonstrated a prima facie case and that the application is seriously made. Allowing intervention will avoid multiplicity of actions and serve the interests of justice. The respondent has not provided a sufficient basis to refuse the application, and the applicant is accordingly granted leave to intervene as the fourth defendant.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 315
Parties
Applicant: Peter Wayne Roberts N.O; Respondent: Brian Kahn Inc; Plaintiff: Brian Kahn Inc; Defendant: Peter William Roberts N.O; Defendant: Maureen Veronica Roberts N.O; Defendant: Loftus Law
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Case Number
08393/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Intervene Application / Application for Leave to Intervene in Pending Action
Outcome
Leave to intervene is granted to the applicant as fourth defendant; costs awarded against the respondent/plaintiff.
Judges
Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Joinder and Intervention, Suretyship, Trust Law, Counterclaim, Rule 12 Uniform Rules
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Joinder and Intervention Suretyship Trust Law Counterclaim Rule 12 Uniform Rules

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Wayne Roberts N.O

Applicant

Brian Kahn Inc

Respondent

Brian Kahn Inc

Plaintiff

Peter William Roberts N.O

Defendant

Maureen Veronica Roberts N.O

Defendant

Loftus Law

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Intervene Application / Application for Leave to Intervene in Pending Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a direct and substantial interest in the action and should have been joined.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to intervene in terms of Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules and/or under common law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case for intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, as principal debtor, has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the action and his rights may be adversely affected by the judgment. He satisfies the requirements for intervention both under Rule 12 and the common law, having demonstrated a prima facie case and that the application is seriously made. Allowing intervention will avoid multiplicity of actions and serve the interests of justice. The respondent has not provided a sufficient basis to refuse the application, and the applicant is accordingly granted leave to intervene as the fourth defendant.

Court Disposition

Leave to intervene is granted to the applicant as fourth defendant; costs awarded against the respondent/plaintiff.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to intervene in the action as the fourth defendant.
  • The respondent/plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of this application.