Suchit v Majorie's Trading Enterprises CC and Others (7011/2016) [2019] ZAKZDHC 13 (12 August 2019)

Suchit v Majorie's Trading Enterprises CC and Others (7011/2016) [2019] ZAKZDHC 13 (12 August 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and comprehensive explanation for her delay in filing the plea. Although illness and lack of notification were alleged, the applicant did not act with the diligence expected of an attorney, nor did she provide supporting affidavits or reply to the plaintiff's answering affidavit. The court was not convinced of the applicant's bona fides, noting her conduct appeared aimed at delaying the proceedings rather than genuinely defending the claim. The interests of justice required dismissal of the application to allow the plaintiff to proceed to finality.

Citation
[2019] ZAKZDHC 13
Parties
Applicant: Verusha Suchit; Respondent: Majorie's Trading Enterprises CC; Respondent: Yusair Property Developers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hussan Farouk Motala
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2019
Case Number
7011/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Plea
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Topping
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Plea, Notice of Bar, Default Judgment, Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Plea Notice of Bar Default Judgment Bona Fide Defence

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Verusha Suchit

Applicant

Majorie's Trading Enterprises CC

Respondent

Yusair Property Developers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Hussan Farouk Motala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in filing her plea.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the indulgence sought would prejudice the plaintiff beyond compensation by costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and comprehensive explanation for her delay in filing the plea. Although illness and lack of notification were alleged, the applicant did not act with the diligence expected of an attorney, nor did she provide supporting affidavits or reply to the plaintiff's answering affidavit. The court was not convinced of the applicant's bona fides, noting her conduct appeared aimed at delaying the proceedings rather than genuinely defending the claim. The interests of justice required dismissal of the application to allow the plaintiff to proceed to finality.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the first respondent's costs.