About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 287
|
|
Dumisa v Ranching (Pty) Limited v Standard Bank of South Africa (10781/2007) [2010] ZAGPPHC 287 (16 April 2010)
IN THE HIGH COL
RT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG
HIGH COURT)
Case
No 10781/2007
DATE:
16 APRIL 2010
In the matter
between.
DUMISA RANCHING
(PTY)
LIMITED
...................................................
Plaintiff
vs
STANDARD BAN K OF
SOUTH AFRICA
...........................................
Defendant
JUDGEMENT
SAPIRE. AJ
This trial was
allocated to me on the morning of the 15lh April 2010
The Plaintiff is
well known to me There were numerous mutters in which he was involved
which I heard when i was a Judge in Swaziland
As a result of
judgments which I gave the Plaintiff applied for my recusal which 1
refused My decision was upheld on appeal
In view of this when
Mr Dlamini together with counsel came to introduce themselves to me
before the case started. I recognized him
and reminded him that we
were well- known to each other in Swaziland. I invited him to ask me
to recuse myself but he expressed
himself entirely satisfied with me
hearing the matter
When the ease was
called in court I made reference to what has taken place in chambers
and the Plaintiff again confirmed that he
had no objection to me
hearing the ease
I then raised the
question of whether Dlamini was entitled to represent the Plaintiff
which is a private company It was long and
indexible rule that a Body
Corporate had to be represented in legal proceedings by attorney and
counsel \o individuals, however
closely connected to the corporation
could represent the corporation in legal proceedings
That rule has in
recent years, been departed from
In re Bankorp vs
California Spice and Marinade (Pty) Ltd.
1997 (4) All SA 317
(W) it
was held that in certain exceptional circumstances the court had a
discretion to permit a juristic person to be represented
by one of
its members of officers on the basis that the inconvenience of having
an unqualified person appear had to be weighed
up against the
injustice of a juristic person being denied access to the Courts
Whether such
exceptional circumstances exist in the present litigation is
uncertain but I heard Mr Dlamini on behalf of the Plaintiff
in regard
to the sole issue on which my decision had to be made
This issue was
whether or not the trial had been removed from the roll of the 14'1'
of April 2010 When the matter was called by
the Acting Deputy Judge
President the issue was raised and the matter was on the following
day referred to me
There is a note
appearing on the from page of the cover of the court file to the
effect that the matter had been removed from the
roll The note is
vouched by the signature of someone who it is not possible to
identify at present, but who could only be the judges
registrar
(clerk) The note indicated that such order was made on the 19* of
March 2010 by his Dolamo, J The order which was transcribed
did not
specifically mention removal of this matter from the roll, but did
direct the setting aside of the subpoenas requiring
relevant
witnesses to attend the hearing of this trial
The matter was
referred to Dolamo. J for clarification and the proceedings which
took place before him were recorded and a transcript
thereof was made
available to me On a thorough reading of this transcription it is
quite clear that the Judge intended to remove
this case from the roll
and that in his opinion the order did not require amendment I am not
sure that it would not have been better
to amend the order as the
Judge's intention is not clearly stated. That he intended to remove
the matter from the roll is clear
from the transcript and I am
satisfied that the note on the cover is a true reflection of the
order actually made by him
In view of this the
trial will not proceed but the wasted costs will be costs in the
cause
W R SAPIRE
ACTING JUDGE
PLAINTIFF
REPRESENTED BY: MR D M DLAMINI
AW A AND SONS
INTERNET CAFE
84 CENTRAL CORNER
CNR ESSELEN AND
CELLIERS
SU NNYSIDE
PRETORIA
DEFEN DANT'S
COUNSEL: ADV A J DANIELS
PRETORIA
ATTORNEYS FOR
PLAINTIFF: NONE
ATTORNEYS FOR
DEFENDANT: WEBBER WENTZ EL. BOWENS
CO ROOTH AND
WESSELS
PARC NOUVEAU
225 VEALE STREET
BROOKLYN
PRETORIA
TEL (012)452-4110
Ref: \BT VAN DER
HOWEN/er