Wright v Steyn and Others (35435/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 338 (5 June 2014)

Wright v Steyn and Others (35435/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 338 (5 June 2014)

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.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 338
Parties
Applicant: Liesel Wright; Respondent: Douw Petrus Jacobus Steyn N.O.; Respondent: Elzie Jzina Steyn N.O.; Respondent: Clive Roland Wiggell N.O.; Respondent: Elsie Maria Wiggell N.O.; Respondent: Nicolaas Willem Lighthelm N.O.; Respondent: M Diks Property CC; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2014
Case Number
35435/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Referral to Trial After Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application referred to trial; applicant to pay costs.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Referral to Trial, Disputes of Fact, Costs Order, Notice of Motion, Uniform Rules Application
Civil Procedure Referral to Trial Disputes of Fact Costs Order Notice of Motion Uniform Rules Application

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liesel Wright

Applicant

Douw Petrus Jacobus Steyn N.O.

Respondent

Elzie Jzina Steyn N.O.

Respondent

Clive Roland Wiggell N.O.

Respondent

Elsie Maria Wiggell N.O.

Respondent

Nicolaas Willem Lighthelm N.O.

Respondent

M Diks Property CC

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Referral to Trial After Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application can be decided on papers or must be referred to trial due to material disputes of fact.
  2. 2 Appropriate procedural orders to regulate the further conduct of the matter.
  3. 3 Responsibility for costs of the application.

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.

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.