Schmahl and Another v Special Investigating Unit (GP10/2020; LP10/2020) [2025] ZAST 2 (23 January 2025)

Schmahl and Another v Special Investigating Unit (GP10/2020; LP10/2020) [2025] ZAST 2 (23 January 2025)

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish a sufficient basis for the joinder of the proposed third parties under Rule 13(1)(b). The applicants did not demonstrate how the third parties contributed to the alleged unlawful acts or why they should be liable to reimburse the applicants. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's argument that the proposed parties are already involved in separate litigation and that their joinder would be prejudicial, inconvenient, and result in unnecessarily prolonged proceedings. The pleadings between the applicants and respondent were considered closed, and no cause of action was disclosed against the proposed third parties. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2025] ZAST 2
Parties
Applicant: Carel Schmahl; Applicant: Johann Christiaan Kilian; Respondent: Special Investigating Unit
Court
Special Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 January 2025
Case Number
GP10/2020 & LP10/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Joinder of Third Parties
Outcome
Application for joinder dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel (one senior counsel) on Scale B.
Judges
D Makhoba
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Apportionment of Liability, Uniform Rule 13, Special Tribunal Rules
Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Apportionment of Liability Uniform Rule 13 Special Tribunal 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carel Schmahl

Applicant

Johann Christiaan Kilian

Applicant

Special Investigating Unit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Joinder of Third Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established grounds for the joinder of third parties under Rule 13(1)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the proposed joinder would prejudice existing parties or unduly prolong proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated a cause of action against the proposed third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish a sufficient basis for the joinder of the proposed third parties under Rule 13(1)(b). The applicants did not demonstrate how the third parties contributed to the alleged unlawful acts or why they should be liable to reimburse the applicants. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's argument that the proposed parties are already involved in separate litigation and that their joinder would be prejudicial, inconvenient, and result in unnecessarily prolonged proceedings. The pleadings between the applicants and respondent were considered closed, and no cause of action was disclosed against the proposed third parties. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application for joinder dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel (one senior counsel) on Scale B.

Orders

  • The application for joinder of third parties is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel, one of whom is senior counsel on Scale B.