Wright v Steyn and Others (35435/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 338 (5 June 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZAGPPHC 338
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- C Pretorius
- Case number
- 35435/13
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- C Pretorius
- Case number
- 35435/13
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the application could not be resolved on the papers due to numerous and material disputes of fact. Accordingly, the matter was referred to trial, with the notice of motion to stand as a simple summons and the answering affidavit as a notice of intention to defend. The applicant was ordered to deliver a declaration within ten days, after which the Uniform Rules of Court would apply. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Court disposition
Application referred to trial; applicant to pay costs.
Orders
- The application is referred to trial.
- The notice of motion will stand as a simple summons.
- The answering affidavit will stand as a notice of intention to defend.
- The declaration to be delivered within ten days of this order.
- Thereafter the Uniform Rules will apply.
- The applicant to pay the costs of this application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Liesel Wright
Applicant Counsel: Adv Bosman SCDouw Petrus Jacobus Steyn N.O.
Respondent Counsel: Adv BesterElzie Jzina Steyn N.O.
Respondent Counsel: Adv BesterClive Roland Wiggell N.O.
Respondent Counsel: Adv BesterElsie Maria Wiggell N.O.
Respondent Counsel: Adv BesterNicolaas Willem Lighthelm N.O.
Respondent Counsel: Adv BesterM Diks Property CC
Respondent Counsel: Adv BesterRegistrar of Deeds, Pretoria
Respondent Counsel: Adv Bester03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Referral to Trial After Opposed Motion
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application can be decided on papers or must be referred to trial due to material disputes of fact.
- 02
Appropriate procedural orders to regulate the further conduct of the matter.
- 03
Responsibility for costs of the application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought relief by way of motion proceedings, contending that the facts were sufficiently clear to justify a final order without referral to trial.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that there were numerous and material disputes of fact on the papers, making it inappropriate to resolve the matter without oral evidence and necessitating referral to trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rules of Court; Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T)
Where material disputes of fact exist in motion proceedings, the matter should be referred to trial for proper ventilation of evidence.
- 02
Uniform Rules of Court
The notice of motion may stand as a simple summons and the answering affidavit as a notice of intention to defend when a matter is referred to trial from motion proceedings.
- 03
Uniform Rules of Court
Costs are generally awarded to the successful party, but the court may exercise its discretion based on the circumstances of referral.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the application could not be resolved on the papers due to numerous and material disputes of fact. Accordingly, the matter was referred to trial, with the notice of motion to stand as a simple summons and the answering affidavit as a notice of intention to defend. The applicant was ordered to deliver a declaration within ten days, after which the Uniform Rules of Court would apply. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Obiter and limits
- Referral to trial is necessary where disputes of fact are material and cannot be resolved on affidavit.
- The procedural conversion from motion to trial ensures fairness and proper ventilation of evidence.
Court disposition
Application referred to trial; applicant to pay costs.
- The application is referred to trial.
- The notice of motion will stand as a simple summons.
- The answering affidavit will stand as a notice of intention to defend.
- The declaration to be delivered within ten days of this order.
- Thereafter the Uniform Rules will apply.
- The applicant to pay the costs of this application.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION. PRETORIA
Case number: 35435/13
Date: 5 June 2014
Not reportable
Not of interest to other judges
In the matter between:
WRIGHT LIESEL.........................................................................................................................Applicant
And
STEYN: DOUW PETRUS JACOBUS N.O. ….................................................................First Respondent
STEYN: ELZIE JZINA N.O. ….....................................................................................Second Respondent
WIGGELL: CLIVE ROLAND N.O. …............................................................................Third Respondent
WIGGELL: ELSIE MARIA N.O. …..............................................................................Fourth Respondent
LIGHTHELM: NICOLAAS WILLEM N.O …................................................................Fifth Respondent
M
DIKS PROPERTY CC …..............................................................................................Sixth Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, PRETORIA …..........................................................Seventh Respondent
JUDGMENT
PRETORIUS J.
[1] After hearing argument and having read the papers the following order is made due to the numerous, material disputes of facts:
1. The application is referred to trial;
2. The notice of motion will stand as a simple summons;
3. The answering affidavit will stand as a notice of intention to defend;
4. The declaration to be delivered within ten days of this order;
5. Thereafter the Uniform Rules will apply.
6.The applicant to pay the costs of this application.
Judge C Pretorius
Case number : 35435/2013
Heard on : 28 May 2014
For the Applicant : Adv Bosman SC
Adv Bosman
Instructed by : Stopforth Swanepoel & Brewis ING
For the Respondent : Adv Bester
Instructed by : Corrie Nel ING
Date of Judgment : 1 June 2014
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.