V.D.W. v van der Westhuizen Attorneys (5333/2017) [2023] ZALMPPHC 2 (18 January 2023)

V.D.W. v van der Westhuizen Attorneys (5333/2017) [2023] ZALMPPHC 2 (18 January 2023)

The court found that the applicant was without legal representation in the current matter from 12 October 2017 until December 2017, and as a lay person, provided a satisfactory explanation for not filing the exception within the prescribed period. The respondent's assertion that the applicant was represented in a separate maintenance case did not equate to representation in the present matter. The applicant's claims were not ill-founded, as the respondent did not dispute the existence of the two underlying transactions, only the circumstances. The court held that there was good cause for granting the extension of time and uplifting the notice of bar, and that the applicant had a fair...

Citation
[2023] ZALMPPHC 2
Parties
Applicant: A [....] V [....] D [....] W [....]; Respondent: van der Westhuizen Attorneys
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2023
Case Number
5333/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time and Upliftment of Notice of Bar Under Rule 27
Outcome
Application granted: extension of time and upliftment of notice of bar.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Bar, Rule 27 Uniform Rules, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Bar Rule 27 Uniform Rules Exception 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A [....] V [....] D [....] W [....]

Applicant

van der Westhuizen Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time and Upliftment of Notice of Bar Under Rule 27

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to file an exception under Rule 27.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of bar filed by the respondent should be uplifted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was prejudiced by lack of legal representation during the relevant period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was without legal representation in the current matter from 12 October 2017 until December 2017, and as a lay person, provided a satisfactory explanation for not filing the exception within the prescribed period. The respondent's assertion that the applicant was represented in a separate maintenance case did not equate to representation in the present matter. The applicant's claims were not ill-founded, as the respondent did not dispute the existence of the two underlying transactions, only the circumstances. The court held that there was good cause for granting the extension of time and uplifting the notice of bar, and that the applicant had a fair...

Court Disposition

Application granted: extension of time and upliftment of notice of bar.

Orders

  • The extension of time in terms of Rule 27 of the Uniform Rules of Court to allow the applicant to file his exception to the special plea, plea on the merits, and counterclaim is granted.
  • The notice of bar filed on 5 December 2017 is uplifted.