Van Den Berg N.O and Others v Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd and Others; The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and Another v Van Den Berg and Others; Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd v Steyn Attorneys and Others (1240/2020; 1955/2016; 765/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 53 (10 March 2021)

Van Den Berg N.O and Others v Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd and Others; The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and Another v Van Den Berg and Others; Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd v Steyn Attorneys and Others (1240/2020; 1955/2016; 765/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 53 (10 March 2021)

The application for consolidation was dismissed because the separated issues in the 2016-case are distinct from the delictual claims in the 2019-case. The trial on the separated issues had already commenced, and consolidation would not result in substantially the same facts or points of law being adjudicated, nor would it expedite proceedings or avoid duplication. Instead, it would cause delay and prejudice, particularly to Steyn, who had already testified as a witness in the 2016-case and would be a litigant in the 2019-case. The Applicants failed to prove convenience, and the prejudice to some parties and the administration of justice would be severe. The court exercised its discretion...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 53
Parties
Applicant: Barend Jacobus van den Berg N.O.; Applicant: Lorraine Marlene van den Berg N.O.; Applicant: Hendrik Stephanus Lodewicus Du Plessis N.O.; Respondent: Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa; Respondent: Coreen Steyn t/a Steyn Attorneys
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Case Number
1240/2020; 1955/2016; 765/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Consolidation Under Rule 11; Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Application for consolidation dismissed; costs awarded against Applicants.
Judges
Opperman, J
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Actions, Rule 11 Application, Separation of Issues, Prejudice and Convenience, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Consolidation of Actions Rule 11 Application Separation of Issues Prejudice and Convenience Costs Orders

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barend Jacobus van den Berg N.O.

Applicant

Lorraine Marlene van den Berg N.O.

Applicant

Hendrik Stephanus Lodewicus Du Plessis N.O.

Applicant

Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Coreen Steyn t/a Steyn Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Consolidation Under Rule 11; Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is convenient and not prejudicial to consolidate case numbers 1955/2016 and 765/2019 under Rule 11.
  2. 2 Whether the separated issues in the 2016-case overlap with the delictual claims in the 2019-case.
  3. 3 Whether consolidation would result in duplication of evidence, costs, or delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for consolidation was dismissed because the separated issues in the 2016-case are distinct from the delictual claims in the 2019-case. The trial on the separated issues had already commenced, and consolidation would not result in substantially the same facts or points of law being adjudicated, nor would it expedite proceedings or avoid duplication. Instead, it would cause delay and prejudice, particularly to Steyn, who had already testified as a witness in the 2016-case and would be a litigant in the 2019-case. The Applicants failed to prove convenience, and the prejudice to some parties and the administration of justice would be severe. The court exercised its discretion...

Court Disposition

Application for consolidation dismissed; costs awarded against Applicants.

Orders

  • The application in terms of Rule 11 of the Uniform Rules to consolidate the actions under case number 1955/2016 and 765/2019 is denied.
  • The Applicants are ordered to pay the costs on an attorney and client scale in the High Court, including the costs of two Counsel.