Snap-On Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Joubert and Others (41993/2012A) [2015] ZAGPPHC 819 (7 December 2015)

Snap-On Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Joubert and Others (41993/2012A) [2015] ZAGPPHC 819 (7 December 2015)

The court held that the respondents failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 6(15) because, although they identified the portions of the replying affidavit and annexures they sought to strike out and stated the grounds, they did not demonstrate how the inclusion of these portions would prejudice them in the further conduct of the litigation. The court emphasized that prejudice is a necessary element for a successful application to strike out under Rule 6(15). Mere technical objections or allegations of hearsay or inadmissibility, without proof of prejudice, are insufficient. Consequently, the application to strike out was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 819
Parties
Applicant: Snap-On Africa (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Snap-On Inc.; Applicant: Snap-On Equipment Inc.; Applicant: Snap-On Equipment Europe Ltd; Respondent: Sean Joubert; Respondent: SO Equipment Gauteng North (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Equipment Africa; Respondent: Integrated Marketing (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2015
Case Number
41993/2012A
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Under Rule 6(15)
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.M. Mabuse
Legal Topics
Rule 6 15 Striking Out, Prejudice Requirement, Hearsay Evidence, Inadmissible Evidence
Civil Procedure Rule 6 15 Striking Out Prejudice Requirement Hearsay Evidence Inadmissible Evidence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Snap-On Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Snap-On Inc.

Applicant

Snap-On Equipment Inc.

Applicant

Snap-On Equipment Europe Ltd

Applicant

Sean Joubert

Respondent

SO Equipment Gauteng North (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Equipment Africa

Respondent

Integrated Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Under Rule 6(15)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have satisfied the requirements of Rule 6(15) for striking out portions of the applicants' replying affidavit and annexures.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have demonstrated prejudice if the impugned matter is not struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the impugned portions constitute hearsay or inadmissible evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 6(15) because, although they identified the portions of the replying affidavit and annexures they sought to strike out and stated the grounds, they did not demonstrate how the inclusion of these portions would prejudice them in the further conduct of the litigation. The court emphasized that prejudice is a necessary element for a successful application to strike out under Rule 6(15). Mere technical objections or allegations of hearsay or inadmissibility, without proof of prejudice, are insufficient. Consequently, the application to strike out was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to strike out is dismissed with costs.