Voco Trade 190 Ltd v Bosielo (18886/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 328 (10 October 2008)

Voco Trade 190 Ltd v Bosielo (18886/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 328 (10 October 2008)

The court found that the respondent had not provided sufficient grounds for a postponement, having had ample time to respond and engage in settlement negotiations. The respondent admitted some indebtedness, and any dispute regarding the quantum should be resolved at trial. The court emphasized that granting leave would not prejudice ongoing negotiations or the respondent's ability to dispute specific items. The application for postponement was refused, and leave was granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent for the claimed amount, together with interest and costs. Costs were ordered to be costs in the main action, given the ongoing nature of the litigation.

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 328
Parties
Applicant: Voco Trade 19 Ltd; Respondent: The Hon Mr Justice Bosielo
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2008
Case Number
18886/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Institute Civil Action Against a Sitting Judge
Outcome
Leave granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent for the claimed amount, with interest and costs.
Judges
B M Ngoepe
Legal Topics
Leave to Sue Judge, Goods Sold and Delivered, Postponement, Prescription
Civil Procedure Leave to Sue Judge Goods Sold and Delivered Postponement Prescription

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Voco Trade 19 Ltd

Applicant

The Hon Mr Justice Bosielo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Institute Civil Action Against a Sitting Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent, a sitting judge, for an alleged debt.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has provided sufficient grounds for a postponement of the application.
  3. 3 Whether the ongoing settlement negotiations or possible prescription justify a postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had not provided sufficient grounds for a postponement, having had ample time to respond and engage in settlement negotiations. The respondent admitted some indebtedness, and any dispute regarding the quantum should be resolved at trial. The court emphasized that granting leave would not prejudice ongoing negotiations or the respondent's ability to dispute specific items. The application for postponement was refused, and leave was granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent for the claimed amount, together with interest and costs. Costs were ordered to be costs in the main action, given the ongoing nature of the litigation.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent for the claimed amount, with interest and costs.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to institute civil action against the respondent for payment of R27,943.60 together with interest a tempora morae and costs for goods allegedly sold and delivered.
  • Costs to be costs in the main action.