Van Den Heever N.O. and Another v Ally and Another (48084/2017) [2021] ZAGPJHC 507 (29 January 2021)

Van Den Heever N.O. and Another v Ally and Another (48084/2017) [2021] ZAGPJHC 507 (29 January 2021)

The court found that the applicants were not remiss in failing to procure the transcript of the Nicolls J judgment earlier, given the procedural history and the late shift in the first respondent's arguments. The respondent's new contentions, raised in supplementary heads of argument, placed the interpretation of the Matojane order at the centre of the dispute, making the transcript relevant and necessary for a fair adjudication of the main application and counterapplication. The court held that it would be preferable for any court deciding the matter to have the transcript available. Regarding costs, the court considered the unusual procedural history, including the respondent's aborted...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 507
Parties
Applicant: Van Den Heever, Theodor Wilhelm N.O.; Applicant: Johannes, Clinton Arthur N.O.; Respondent: Ally, Dhanesha; Respondent: The Liberty Group Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Case Number
48084/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application for Postponement
Outcome
Application for postponement granted; costs reserved.
Judges
G Rome
Legal Topics
Postponement, Costs Order, Counterapplication, Interpretation of Court Order
Civil Procedure Postponement Costs Order Counterapplication Interpretation of Court Order

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

Parties

Van Den Heever, Theodor Wilhelm N.O.

Applicant

Johannes, Clinton Arthur N.O.

Applicant

Ally, Dhanesha

Respondent

The Liberty Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application for Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted a postponement to obtain the transcript of the Nicolls J judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were remiss in failing to procure the transcript earlier.
  3. 3 How the procedural history and late change in respondent's arguments affect the fairness of granting postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not remiss in failing to procure the transcript of the Nicolls J judgment earlier, given the procedural history and the late shift in the first respondent's arguments. The respondent's new contentions, raised in supplementary heads of argument, placed the interpretation of the Matojane order at the centre of the dispute, making the transcript relevant and necessary for a fair adjudication of the main application and counterapplication. The court held that it would be preferable for any court deciding the matter to have the transcript available. Regarding costs, the court considered the unusual procedural history, including the respondent's aborted...

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application for postponement is granted.
  • The matter is postponed sine die.