Sacerdote v Stromberg (34218/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 114 (27 February 2019)

Sacerdote v Stromberg (34218/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 114 (27 February 2019)

The court found that although service by email on the second and third respondents was not in strict compliance with Uniform Rule 4(1) and Rule 5(1), both respondents had actual notice of the application and had filed confirmatory affidavits in support of it. No relief was sought against them, and they would be bound by any order made. The court held that the applicant suffered no prejudice as a result of the imperfect service. The High Court has discretion to condone non-compliance with the rules where no prejudice is shown and where condonation would avoid unnecessary costs. Accordingly, the application to set aside the notice of motion as an irregular step was dismissed, and costs were...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 114
Parties
Applicant: Selene E Sacerdote; Respondent: Antonella P Stromberg; Respondent: Alessandro Enzo Sacerdote; Respondent: Corali Cinzja Sacerdote; Respondent: Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2019
Case Number
34218/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Rule 30(1) Application to Set Aside Notice of Motion as Irregular Step
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Condonation of Irregular Step, Uniform Rules of Court, Prejudice, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Service of Process Condonation of Irregular Step Uniform Rules of Court Prejudice Attorney and Client Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Selene E Sacerdote

Applicant

Antonella P Stromberg

Respondent

Alessandro Enzo Sacerdote

Respondent

Corali Cinzja Sacerdote

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Rule 30(1) Application to Set Aside Notice of Motion as Irregular Step

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the notice of motion and founding affidavit by email on the second and third respondents was irregular and non-compliant with Uniform Rule 4(1) and Rule 5(1).
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent acknowledgement of receipt and confirmatory affidavits by the second and third respondents cured the defective service.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was prejudiced by the imperfect service and entitled to have the notice of motion set aside as an irregular step.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although service by email on the second and third respondents was not in strict compliance with Uniform Rule 4(1) and Rule 5(1), both respondents had actual notice of the application and had filed confirmatory affidavits in support of it. No relief was sought against them, and they would be bound by any order made. The court held that the applicant suffered no prejudice as a result of the imperfect service. The High Court has discretion to condone non-compliance with the rules where no prejudice is shown and where condonation would avoid unnecessary costs. Accordingly, the application to set aside the notice of motion as an irregular step was dismissed, and costs were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.