Scheepers v Stander NO and Others In re: Stander NO and Another v Scheepers (73309/2009) [2013] ZAGPPHC 208 (28 June 2013)

Scheepers v Stander NO and Others In re: Stander NO and Another v Scheepers (73309/2009) [2013] ZAGPPHC 208 (28 June 2013)

The court found that section 21 of the Insolvency Act does not deprive the applicant of locus standi in respect of liabilities, such as a costs order, as the section is concerned with assets and not debts. The applicant provided a reasonable and bona fide explanation for her failure to oppose the taxation, being blameless for her attorney's absence due to medical reasons. The time between the taxed bill coming to her attention and the launching of the application was not unreasonable, and condonation was granted. The application was bona fide, with a genuine dispute regarding the costs. The allocatur and writ were set aside, and the costs were ordered to be taxed de novo. No costs order...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 208
Parties
Applicant: Louisa Maria Scheepers; Respondent: Conraad Louwrens Stander N.O.; Respondent: Ignatius Clemment Mike Teko Shirilele N.O.; Respondent: Die Takseermeester van die Noord Gauteng Hoe Hof, Pretoria; Respondent: Strydom & Bredenkamp Ing
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2013
Case Number
73309/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Rescission and Condonation of Failure to Oppose Taxation; Review of Allocatur and Writ
Outcome
Application granted; allocatur and writ set aside; costs to be taxed de novo; no order as to costs.
Judges
B Neukircher
Legal Topics
Rescission of Allocatur, Condonation of Late Filing, Costs Taxation, Locus Standi, Insolvency Act Section 21
Civil Procedure Rescission of Allocatur Condonation of Late Filing Costs Taxation Locus Standi Insolvency Act Section 21

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louisa Maria Scheepers

Applicant

Conraad Louwrens Stander N.O.

Respondent

Ignatius Clemment Mike Teko Shirilele N.O.

Respondent

Die Takseermeester van die Noord Gauteng Hoe Hof, Pretoria

Respondent

Strydom & Bredenkamp Ing

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Rescission and Condonation of Failure to Oppose Taxation; Review of Allocatur and Writ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's locus standi is affected by section 21 of the Insolvency Act due to her spouse's sequestration.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient cause and reasonable explanation exist for the applicant's failure to oppose the taxation.
  3. 3 Whether the allocatur and writ issued should be set aside and the costs taxed de novo.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that section 21 of the Insolvency Act does not deprive the applicant of locus standi in respect of liabilities, such as a costs order, as the section is concerned with assets and not debts. The applicant provided a reasonable and bona fide explanation for her failure to oppose the taxation, being blameless for her attorney's absence due to medical reasons. The time between the taxed bill coming to her attention and the launching of the application was not unreasonable, and condonation was granted. The application was bona fide, with a genuine dispute regarding the costs. The allocatur and writ were set aside, and the costs were ordered to be taxed de novo. No costs order...

Court Disposition

Application granted; allocatur and writ set aside; costs to be taxed de novo; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The allocatur of the Third Respondent dated 8 June 2012 is set aside.
  • The writ issued by the First and Second Respondents under case number 73309/2009 is set aside.