Vusela Construction (Pty) Ltd v Volker and Others (13813/07) [2011] ZAWCHC 303 (29 July 2011)

Republic of South Africa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

Case Number: 13813/07

In the matter of:

VUSELA CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD ….......................................................First Applicant

and

LEONARD

THEODOR VOLKER …............................................................First Respondent

THE

PREMIER OF THE WESTERN CAPE ….......................................Second Respondent

JOHANNES

H LOUW …............................................................................Third Respondent

THE

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND …............................................................Fourth Respondent

PREMIER

OF THE WESTERN CAPE …....................................................Second Applicant

VUSELA CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD ….............................................Second Respondent

In re:

LEONARD

THEODOR VOLKER …............................................................................Plaintiff

And

THE

PREMIER OF THE WESTERN CAPE …........................................First Respondent

JOHANNES

H LOUW …................................................................................Third Defendant

Order MIA (AJ) Having regard to all the above the following orders are made: 1. The first applicant is granted leave in terms of Uniform Rule 13 (3)(b) to serve the third party notice on the fourth respondent.

2. The first applicant is granted leave in terms of Section 2 (4)(b) of the Apportionment of Damages Act, 1956 (Act No 34 of 1956) to deliver the notice in terms of section 2 (2) of the Apportionment of the Damages Act.

3. The second applicant is granted leave in terms of Uniform Rule 13 (3)(b) to serve the third party notice on the fourth respondent.

4. The second applicant is granted leave in terms of Section 2 (4)(b) of the Apportionment of Damages Act. 1956 (Act No 34 of 1956) to deliver the notice in terms of section 2 (2) of the Apportionment of the Damages Act.

5. The applicants shall pay the cost of this application and the first respondents wasted costs in the main action jointly and severally.

MIA AJ 29 July 2011

Order

MIA (AJ)

Having regard to all the above the following orders are made:

1. The first applicant is granted leave in terms of Uniform Rule 13 (3)(b) to serve the third party notice on the fourth respondent.

2. The first applicant is granted leave in terms of Section 2 (4)(b) of the Apportionment of Damages Act, 1956 (Act No 34 of 1956) to deliver the notice in terms of section 2 (2) of the Apportionment of the Damages Act.

3. The second applicant is granted leave in terms of Uniform Rule 13 (3)(b) to serve the third party notice on the fourth respondent.

4. The second applicant is granted leave in terms of Section 2 (4)(b) of the Apportionment of Damages Act. 1956 (Act No 34 of 1956) to deliver the notice in terms of section 2 (2) of the Apportionment of the Damages Act.

5. The applicants shall pay the cost of this application and the first respondents wasted costs in the main action jointly and severally.

MIA AJ

29 July 2011