Dale v Riaan Du Plessis Attorneys and Conveyancers and Others (38406/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 154 (28 February 2022)
The court found that the applicant had not complied with Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules of Court. As a result, there was no valid application before the court. The applicant, being dominus litis, was responsible for ensuring procedural compliance. The failure to comply with the rule was fatal to the application, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPPHC 154
- Parties
- Applicant: Dale Irene; Respondent: Riaan Du Plessis Attorneys & Conveyancers; Respondent: Johannes Christian Du Plessis; Respondent: PJ Kleynhans Incorporated Attorneys; Respondent: Legal Practice Council
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 28 February 2022
- Case Number
- 38406/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Hearing and Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
- Judges
- NN Bam
- Legal Topics
- Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 63 Non Compliance, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dale Irene
Applicant
Riaan Du Plessis Attorneys & Conveyancers
Respondent
Johannes Christian Du Plessis
Respondent
PJ Kleynhans Incorporated Attorneys
Respondent
Legal Practice Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Hearing and Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant complied with Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
- 2 Whether the application is properly before the court.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not complied with Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules of Court. As a result, there was no valid application before the court. The applicant, being dominus litis, was responsible for ensuring procedural compliance. The failure to comply with the rule was fatal to the application, and the court dismissed the application with costs awarded to the first and second respondents.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The applicant must pay the first and second respondents' costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO:38406/2020
DOH: 21 FEBRUARY 2022
In the matter of:
DALE IRENE Applicant
and
RIAAN DU PLESSIS ATTORNEYS & CONVEYANCERS First Respondent
JOHANNES CHRISTIAN DU PLESSIS
Second Respondent
P J KLEYNHANS INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS Third Respondent
LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL
Fourth Respondent
JUDGMENT
THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN REMOTELY AND SHALL BE CIRCULATED TO THE PARTIES BY WAY OF EMAIL. ITS DATE AND TIME OF 2022/02/28
A. Introduction
1. This matter was heard on 21 February 2022.
2. The second respondent practices as a sole practitioner. Thus, notwithstanding the citation of the first and second respondents, they are essentially the same person. The third and fourth respondents are not participating in this matter. For that reason, I use respondent when referring to the first and second respondents.
3. The applicant, as the party that is dominus litis, bears the responsibility to ensure that her papers are in order.
4. Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules is applicable. Ex facie the papers, Rule 63 has not been complied with. Thus, there is no application before court. On that basis, the âapplicationâ cannot succeed.
B. Order
5. In the circumstances, I make the following order:
(i) The application is dismissed.
(ii) The applicant must pay the first and second respnodentsâ costs.
NN BAM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Appearances:
Counsel for the applicants: Adv Mureriwa
Instructed by: Makota Attorneys
For the respondents
Adv Grobler SC
Instructed by: JC Du Plessis Attorneys
â Jansen and Jansen