Scheepers v Msizi and Others, Scheepers v Cennergi (Pty) Ltd and Others (2710/14, 3977/14) [2015] ZAECPEHC 15 (19 February 2015)

Scheepers v Msizi and Others, Scheepers v Cennergi (Pty) Ltd and Others (2710/14, 3977/14) [2015] ZAECPEHC 15 (19 February 2015)

The court found that Scheepers had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for his inability to proceed, which was not a delaying tactic. The complexity and volume of the matters justified the need for additional preparation time. The interests of justice required that Scheepers be given time to prepare his defence, and any prejudice to the applicants was outweighed by the procedural unfairness that would result from refusing the postponement. Scheepers' tender of costs mitigated prejudice to the applicants. The court exercised its discretion to grant the postponement and ordered the transfer of the matter to Grahamstown by consent.

Citation
[2015] ZAECPEHC 15
Parties
Applicant: Mark Scheepers; Respondent: Nomthandazo Florence Msizi; Respondent: Litha Lenin Msizi; Respondent: Watt Energy (RF) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cennergi (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tsitsikamma Community Wind Farm (RF) (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Case Number
2710/14, 3977/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Postponement
Outcome
Application for postponement granted.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Postponement of Proceedings, Wasted Costs, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Postponement of Proceedings Wasted Costs Procedural Fairness

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Scheepers

Applicant

Nomthandazo Florence Msizi

Respondent

Litha Lenin Msizi

Respondent

Watt Energy (RF) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Cennergi (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Tsitsikamma Community Wind Farm (RF) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether good cause exists for the postponement of the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the application for postponement is a delaying tactic.
  3. 3 What prejudice would be suffered by the parties if postponement is granted or refused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Scheepers had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for his inability to proceed, which was not a delaying tactic. The complexity and volume of the matters justified the need for additional preparation time. The interests of justice required that Scheepers be given time to prepare his defence, and any prejudice to the applicants was outweighed by the procedural unfairness that would result from refusing the postponement. Scheepers' tender of costs mitigated prejudice to the applicants. The court exercised its discretion to grant the postponement and ordered the transfer of the matter to Grahamstown by consent.

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted.

Orders

  • Case numbers 2710/14 and 3977/14, including all interlocutory applications therein, are postponed to Friday 13 March 2015.
  • The matter is transferred to the Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown.