Taole v Mothibe (42070/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 158 (8 February 2024)

Taole v Mothibe (42070/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 158 (8 February 2024)

The court postponed the matter sine die because the respondent, who had failed to file an answering affidavit, appeared with legal representation on the day of the hearing. The applicant could not be granted relief on the merits due to the respondent's presence and representation. The respondent was penalized with a costs order for causing the postponement. The order did not dispose of the merits of the application, and the matter was subsequently heard and dismissed by another judge. The absence of a transcript was due to a lack of power and mechanical recording on the day in question.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 158
Parties
Applicant: Retselisitsoe Lehlohonolo Taole; Respondent: Teke Elias Mothibe
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2024
Case Number
42070/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Reasons for Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Order for postponement sine die, respondent to file answering affidavit within ten days, and respondent to pay wasted costs.
Judges
MJ Mosopa
Legal Topics
Postponement, Costs Order, Answering Affidavit, Motion Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Postponement Costs Order Answering Affidavit Motion Court Procedure

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

Retselisitsoe Lehlohonolo Taole

Applicant

Teke Elias Mothibe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Reasons for Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the postponement of the matter was justified.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be penalized with a costs order for the postponement.
  3. 3 Whether the order disposed of the merits of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court postponed the matter sine die because the respondent, who had failed to file an answering affidavit, appeared with legal representation on the day of the hearing. The applicant could not be granted relief on the merits due to the respondent's presence and representation. The respondent was penalized with a costs order for causing the postponement. The order did not dispose of the merits of the application, and the matter was subsequently heard and dismissed by another judge. The absence of a transcript was due to a lack of power and mechanical recording on the day in question.

Court Disposition

Order for postponement sine die, respondent to file answering affidavit within ten days, and respondent to pay wasted costs.

Orders

  • The matter is postponed sine die.
  • The respondent is to file its answering affidavit within ten days of the order.