SIU v Legodi and Others (Application to strike out Schmahl and Another v SIU) (LP/01/2020) [2022] ZAST 9 (28 April 2022)

SIU v Legodi and Others (Application to strike out Schmahl and Another v SIU) (LP/01/2020) [2022] ZAST 9 (28 April 2022)

The Tribunal found that the SIU's withdrawal of its particulars of claim did not amount to a withdrawal of the entire action, as no notice of withdrawal in terms of Tribunal Rule 21(1) was delivered. The action remained pending, and the SIU regularised its position by filing amended particulars of claim within the required period. However, the SIU failed to comply with the Tribunal's directive to plead the terms of the contracts and damages separately, as required by the 9 September 2021 judgment and Uniform Rules 18(4) and 18(10). While the applicants were entitled to seek a striking out order under Uniform Rule 30, the interests of justice required that the SIU be compelled to comply...

Citation
[2022] ZAST 9
Parties
Applicant: Carel Schmahl; Applicant: Johann Christiaan Kilian; Respondent: Special Investigating Unit; Defendant: Phineas Kghahliso Legodi
Court
Special Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Case Number
LP/01/2020
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Application to Strike Out and Related Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application to strike out succeeds; SIU ordered to comply with Tribunal's previous judgment and pay costs.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Action, Amendment of Pleadings, Service of Process, Application to Strike Out, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Action Amendment of Pleadings Service of Process Application to Strike Out Costs Award

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carel Schmahl

Applicant

Johann Christiaan Kilian

Applicant

Special Investigating Unit

Respondent

Phineas Kghahliso Legodi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Application to Strike Out and Related Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SIU's withdrawal of its particulars of claim on 13 October 2021 constituted a withdrawal of the entire action against the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the SIU failed to comply with the Tribunal's directive to amend its particulars of claim as per the 9 September 2021 judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the SIU's service of its particulars of claim complied with Uniform Rule 4 and Tribunal Rule 6.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the SIU's withdrawal of its particulars of claim did not amount to a withdrawal of the entire action, as no notice of withdrawal in terms of Tribunal Rule 21(1) was delivered. The action remained pending, and the SIU regularised its position by filing amended particulars of claim within the required period. However, the SIU failed to comply with the Tribunal's directive to plead the terms of the contracts and damages separately, as required by the 9 September 2021 judgment and Uniform Rules 18(4) and 18(10). While the applicants were entitled to seek a striking out order under Uniform Rule 30, the interests of justice required that the SIU be compelled to comply...

Court Disposition

Application to strike out succeeds; SIU ordered to comply with Tribunal's previous judgment and pay costs.

Orders

  • The application succeeds.
  • The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) shall pay the applicants' costs on the attorney and client scale.