Segage and Another v Petrosite (Pty) Ltd (13765/13) [2017] ZAGPPHC 636 (22 September 2017)

Segage and Another v Petrosite (Pty) Ltd (13765/13) [2017] ZAGPPHC 636 (22 September 2017)

The court found that the applicants' affidavits were materially contradictory and failed to provide a coherent or substantiated basis for the relief sought. No facts were placed before the court to justify condonation for the late filing of amendments or for leave to raise a point of law. The applicants failed to comply with the procedural requirements and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for their default. The court held that litigants must rely on their papers and cannot supplement their case through oral submissions to the prejudice of the other party. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 636
Parties
Applicant: Happy Ezekiel Segage; Applicant: Gerda Kelebogile Segage; Respondent: Petrosite (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2017
Case Number
13765/13
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Amendments
Outcome
Application for condonation for the late filing of consequential amendments dismissed with costs.
Judges
M B Mokoena
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Plea Amendment, Court Order Compliance
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Plea Amendment Court Order Compliance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Happy Ezekiel Segage

Applicant

Gerda Kelebogile Segage

Applicant

Petrosite (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Amendments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient grounds for condonation for the late filing of consequential amendments.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have complied with the procedural requirements for raising a point of law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' affidavits provide a coherent and consistent basis for the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' affidavits were materially contradictory and failed to provide a coherent or substantiated basis for the relief sought. No facts were placed before the court to justify condonation for the late filing of amendments or for leave to raise a point of law. The applicants failed to comply with the procedural requirements and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for their default. The court held that litigants must rely on their papers and cannot supplement their case through oral submissions to the prejudice of the other party. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation for the late filing of consequential amendments dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the applicants' consequential amendments is dismissed with costs.