Zoolakha v G L Events Oasys Consortium and Another (19126/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 433 (18 June 2021)

Zoolakha v G L Events Oasys Consortium and Another (19126/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 433 (18 June 2021)

The Court found that although the Applicant delayed in applying for a trial date, her advanced age and ill-health justified accommodating her request to record evidence on commission. The use of virtual hearings during the Covid-19 pandemic may render such applications unnecessary, but future uncertainties regarding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 433
Parties
Applicant: Zoolakha Ishmail; Respondent: G L Events Oasys Consortium; Respondent: ZL Cleaning Services CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Case Number
19126/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application / Interlocutory Application for Evidence on Commission Under Rule 38
Outcome
Application granted. The Applicant is authorized to record evidence on commission under Rule 38, with procedural safeguards for the Respondents. No order as to costs for the interlocutory application; costs for commissioning of evidence reserved.
Judges
Tsatsi EK
Legal Topics
Evidence on Commission, Rule 38 Application, Virtual Hearings, Inherent Jurisdiction, Accommodation of Litigants
Civil Procedure Evidence on Commission Rule 38 Application Virtual Hearings Inherent Jurisdiction Accommodation of Litigants

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoolakha Ishmail

Applicant

G L Events Oasys Consortium

Respondent

ZL Cleaning Services CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Application / Interlocutory Application for Evidence on Commission Under Rule 38

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant should be permitted to record her evidence on commission due to age and ill-health.
  2. 2 Whether virtual hearings via Microsoft Teams render the Rule 38 application redundant.
  3. 3 Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to accommodate the Applicant's circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that although the Applicant delayed in applying for a trial date, her advanced age and ill-health justified accommodating her request to record evidence on commission. The use of virtual hearings during the Covid-19 pandemic may render such applications unnecessary, but future uncertainties regarding the continuation of virtual proceedings and the Applicant's frailty warranted the exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the need to adapt procedures to litigants' circumstances and constitutional values, including ubuntu. Accordingly, the Applicant was authorized to lead evidence on commission before an experienced advocate, with procedural...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Applicant is authorized to record evidence on commission under Rule 38, with procedural safeguards for the Respondents. No order as to costs for the interlocutory application; costs for commissioning of evidence reserved.

Orders

  • The Applicant is authorized and directed to lead evidence as Plaintiff and record the evidence in terms of Rule 38 (3) read with Rule 38 (4), (5), (6), (7) before an advocate of at least ten years' experience to be agreed upon by the parties within thirty days, or appointed by the Chairperson of the Pretoria Bar...
  • The Respondents are entitled and authorized to have a legal representative present when the Applicant gives evidence.