Vena and Another v Vena and Others (2461/2008)
Vena and Another v Vena and Others (2461/2008) [2009] ZAECPEHC 26; 2010 (2) SA 248 (ECP) (28 May 2009)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by rule 6(12)(b), with vague and insubstantial allegations that did not justify the truncated procedure. While the Supreme Court of Appeal has indicated that lack of urgency should generally result in striking the matter off the roll, the trial court retains discretion to dismiss an application in cases of abuse of process. On the merits, the agreement did not specify the method of payment, and commercial practice as well as the conduct of both parties indicated that payment by conditional guarantee was contemplated. T…
Source excerpt
- Urgency In Motion Proceedings
- Payment In Commercial Contracts
- Absolution From Instance
- Leave To Appeal
- Close Corporations