About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAFSHC 98
|
|
Wolhuter N.O. and Others v Mtetwa Investments (Pty) Ltd (4542/2023; 4543/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 98 (4 April 2024)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable:
NO/YES
CASE NO.: 4542/2023
In
the application between
:
JOHANNES
JACOBUS WOLHUTER N.O.
First
Applicant
[1]
FANTI
BEKKER HATTINGH N.O.
Second
Applicant
STEPHEN
FOUCHEé N.O.
Third
Applicant
[In
their capacities as joint trustees of the QWAHA TRUST.
Master’s
reference number: IT1[…]]
and
MTETWA
INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD
Respondent
[2]
[Registration
number: 2014[…]]
AND
CASE
NO.: 4543/2023
In
the application between
:
JOHANNES
JACOBUS WOLHUTER N.O.
First
Applicant
FANTI
BEKKER HATTINGH N.O.
Second
Applicant
STEPHEN
FOUCHEé N.O.
Third
Applicant
[In
their capacities as joint trustees of the QWAHA TRUST.
Master’s
reference number: IT1[…]]
and
ALFRED
ZAKADE MTETWA
First
Respondent
[3]
[Identity
number: 5[…]]
ZINVONOX
(PTY) LTD
Second
Respondent
[4]
[Registration
number: 2018[…]]
JOHANNES
STEPHANUS OLIVIER
Third
Respondent
[Identity
number: 8[…]]
Coram:
M Opperman J
Heard
:
25 January 2024
Delivered:
4 April 2024. This judgment was handed down
in court and electronically by circulation to the parties’
legal representatives
via
email and release to SAFLII on 4 April 2024. The
date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 15h00 on 4 April 2024
Summary:
In limine
–
replying
affidavits – condonation for late filing – new case
in reply
ORDER
1.
The applications for the condonation of the late
filing of the replying affidavits in both cases with numbers
4542/2023 and 4543/2023
are denied with costs.
2.
The applicants are granted
leave in both cases to set the matters down for hearing of the merits
in the main applications.
JUDGMENT
Opperman J
[1]
The
rules in litigation “act as anchors in the tides of injustice,
to keep the principles of law afloat.”
[5]
More real is that court orders must be complied with. The judicial
authority in our democracy that is vested in the courts, may
not
become ineffective.
[2]
The consternation, conflict and costs that
non-compliance with court orders and the rules of court have caused
in civil litigation
have become a menace in the administration of
justice. It affects justice and pollutes the sanctimony of the Rule
of Law.
[3]
The ease with which court orders are ignored by
litigants and counsel alike, and the Uniform Rules of Court just
disregarded, is
astounding. In the meanwhile, the justice system
battles to maintain veracity because the layperson cannot fathom the
delays and
the astronomical costs that makes access to justice
unreachable. The Constitutional Court remarked in
Grootboom
v National Prosecuting Authority and Another
(C696/08)
[2009] ZALCCT 15 (18 December 2009) that:
[21]
The failure by parties to comply with the rules of court or
directions is not of recent origin. Non-compliance
has bedevilled our
courts at various levels for a long time. Even this Court has
not been spared the irritation and inconvenience
flowing from a
failure by parties to abide by the Rules of this Court.
[4]
Courts have regarded this scourge of
non-compliance with such disdain that the following was ruled in
Collett v Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration
(2014) 6 BLLR
523
(LAC) in a unanimous judgment of the Labour Appeal Court, wherein
Musi AJA held as follows:
[38]
There are overwhelming precedents in this Court, the Supreme Court of
Appeal and the Constitutional
Court for the proposition that where
there is a flagrant or gross failure to comply with the rules of
court condonation may be
refused without considering the prospects of
success. In
NUM v Council for Mineral Technology,
it was
pointed out that in considering whether good cause has been shown the
well-known approach adopted in
Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd
1962 (4) SA 531
(A) at 532(C-D) should be followed but:
‘
(T)here
is a further principle which is applied and that is that without a
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay,
the prospects of
success are immaterial, and without good prospects of success, no
matter how good the explanation for the delay,
an application for
condonation should be refused.’
[39]
The submission that the court
a quo
had to consider the
prospects of success irrespective of the unsatisfactory and
unacceptable explanation for the gross and flagrant
disregard of the
rules is without merit.
[5]
It
is common cause in
casu
that
the applicants did not comply with a court order of this court
pertaining to the filing of the replying affidavits. This judgment,
as result, turns on the admissibility of the replying affidavits by
the applicants on the late filing thereof and in addition,
the
evidence contained therein is alleged to be of the nature of a “new
case in reply”.
[6]
[6]
The main applications are based on a liquidation
application and a judgment application.
[7]
The case appeared on the roll of this court for
the first time in the unopposed motion court on 21 September 2023. It
became opposed
and the following order followed:
IT IS ORDERED THAT: (By
agreement between all parties)
1.
The Application is postponed to the Opposed Motion Roll of the 16th
of November 2023.
2.
With regards to the 1st Respondent:
2.1
The 1st Respondent to file their Opposing Affidavit on or before the
13th of October 2023.
2.2
The Applicants to file their Replying Affidavit on or before the
27th of October 2023.
(Accentuation added)
3.
With regards to the 2nd and 3rd Respondent:
3.1
The 2nd and 3rd Respondents to file their Opposing Affidavits on or
before the 13th of October
2023.
3.2
The Applicants to file their Replying Affidavit on or before the
27th of October 2023.
(Accentuation added)
4.
Costs to be costs in the Suit.
[8]
The court order was complied with but for the
applicants that simply did not file their replying affidavits on the
27
th
of
October 2023. The matter was postponed to 25 January 2024 by
agreement between the parties on 16 November 2023. The case could
have been finalised on 16 November 2023.
[9]
On 6 December 2023 the applicants served and filed
their replying affidavit in respect of the liquidation application.
In addition,
the applicants also served and filed their replying
affidavit in respect of the answering affidavit of Mr. Mtetwa in the
judgment
application as well as their replying affidavit to the
answering affidavit of Zinvonox and Mr. Olivier in the judgment
application
on 6 December 2023.
[10]
Each replying affidavit also seek condonation for
the late filing thereof.
[11]
The
condonation applications are opposed by the company and Mr. Mtetwa.
It is also the case for all the respondents that the replying
papers
that are “in excess of 400 pages”
[7]
make out a new case in reply:
2.2
In
casu
the application for condonation is opposed.
2.3
It is clear from the replying affidavit that the Applicants intends
to make out its case in reply.
It didn't do so in the founding
papers.
2.4
The Respondents obviously did not have the
opportunity of answering any of these allegations as it is for the
first time raised
in reply.
2.5
The Applicants should have made out its proper
case in its founding papers to enable the Respondents to answer
thereto.
It
is trite that it is expected of an applicant to stand or fall by
its founding papers.
2.7
The
Applicants, on realizing that they had to put new facts before Court,
could easily have withdrawn its applications and issued
new
applications properly motivated to allow the Respondents to answer
thereto. It preferred not to do so, but rather make out
its case in
the replying papers and then request the Trial Court to grant
condonation averring that there is no prejudice for the
Respondents.
The prejudice is clear, with respect in my submission for all to
see
.
[8]
(Accentuation added)
and
2.1
The Applicants that filed a replying affidavit set out new facts,
such facts are not contained
within the founding affidavit. I submit
that the Second and Third Respondent are precluded and prejudiced
from answering and challenging
the validity of such allegations as it
is not included and stated with in the founding affidavit.
[9]
[12]
As the hearing evolved on the 25
th
of January 2024 the parties agreed that the issue
of the replying affidavits must be disposed of and adjudicated upon
before the
merits in the main applications can be argued. There was
consensus on the fact that notwithstanding the ruling on the replying
affidavits, the matters will still be heard on the merits at a later
stage. The court did order as such before the proceedings stood
down
for judgment.
[13]
The dictum by Rampai J in the case of
Louw
v Grobler and Another
(3074/2016)
[2016] ZAFSHC 206
(15 December 2016) is the universal compass in
cases in which court orders, rules and process are abused,
manipulated and not observed.
[18]
The purpose of the uniform court rules is to regulate the litigation
process, procedures and the exchange
of pleadings. The entire
process of litigation has to be driven according to the rules.
The rules set the parameters
within (sic) the course of litigation
has to proceed. The rules of engagement, must, therefore, be
obeyed by the litigants.
However, dogmatically rigid adherence
to the uniform court rules is as distasteful as their flagrant
disregard or violation.
Dogmatic adherence, just like flagrant
violation, defeats the purpose for which the court rules were made.
The prime purpose
of the court rules is to oil the wheels of justice
in order to expedite the resolution of disputes. Quibbling
about trivial
deviations from the court rules retards instead of
enhancing the civil justice system. The court rules are not an
end in
themselves.
[14]
The law on condonation in more detail is that:
Rule 27(3): “The
court may, on good cause shown, condone any non-compliance with these
rules.” The discretion is now
wide but condonation is not
merely there for the asking. At first, the rule permitted condonation
under exceptional circumstances.
Section 34 of the Constitution of
the Republic of South Africa, 1996 is a right that must be regarded
with the utmost respect.
The judicial discretion that prevails
demands fairness to both sides. Principles and factors have evolved
over the years in case
law and in the ethos of the Constitution. Each
case stands on its own merits. It is the mosaic of factors that must
be weighed
judicially; the correct weight must be applied to the
relevant proven fact that caused the disobedience. The legal
intensity of
a fact or factor will vary according to the interest to
be served and the fall out of improper litigation.
[15]
A piecemeal approach will not suffice. In
Melane
v Santam Insurance Co Ltd
1962 (4) SA
531
(A) at 532 C to F it was held that:
…
Ordinarily
these facts are interrelated, they are not individually decisive, for
that would be a piecemeal approach incompatible
with a true
discretion,… What is needed is an objective conspectus...
[16]
The Constitutional Court decreed in
Grootboom
v National Prosecuting Authority and Another
(C696/08)
[2009] ZALCCT 15 (18 December 2009) that:
[51]
In this Court the test for determining whether condonation should be
granted or refused is the interests
of justice. If it is in the
interests of justice that condonation be granted, it will be
granted. If it is not in the
interests of justice to do so, it
will not be granted. The factors that are taken into account in
that inquiry include:
(a)
the length of the delay;
(b)
the explanation for, or cause for, the delay;
(c)
the prospects of success for the party seeking condonation;
(d)
the importance of the issue(s) that the matter raises;
(e)
the prejudice to the other party or parties; and
(f)
the effect of the delay on the administration of justice.
[17]
Prejudice and the interest of justice are vital.
In this case the replying affidavits were not only late and in
non-compliance with
a court order, but it was also inundated with new
facts and documents that were available when the founding affidavits
were compiled
and submitted. The respondents were prohibited from
defending themselves against the new evidence by the Uniform Rules of
Court.
They would have had to embark on expensive litigation, for
instance rule 30/30A and rule 6(5)(e) applications, to curtail the
effect
of the replying affidavits on their client’s case(s).
[18]
The
explanation by the applicants for the “delay and/or
lateness”
[10]
is that it
was occasioned by:
13.2.
the proximate/direct cause of the lateness stems from
the applicant’s deponent being abroad, counsel having
to
inspect and salvage any potential storm damage, settlement
negotiations and obtaining the magnitude of annexures attached to
the
Replying Affidavits and then having to peruse same and articulate the
content thereof in the Replying Affidavits and which
obviously took
time.
[19]
It was not explained why the “applicant’s
deponent” was overseas and why it was not possible to consult
in the
year 2023,
via
electronic media or platform. I agree with the
sentiments in
Nzima v Tourvest
Accommodation and Activities, a division of Tourvest Holdings (Pty)
Ltd
(JS562/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 337 (5
October 2021):
[25]
Having explained the challenges encountered as a result of the
lockdown and the financial constraints, the
Applicant failed to
explain why he and his attorneys of record could not implement other
means of communication, such as telephone
consultation etc in order
to avoid delaying drafting the statement of claim. It was never the
Applicant’s argument that he
was unaware of the date on which
the statement of claim ought to be filed.
[20]
There is not any explanation when the trip
overseas started, if it was for holiday, mere business or urgent
unpreventable issues.
The implication is that the court order, the
court and other litigants must merely go onto the back burner because
of the vague
statement that one person went overseas.
[21]
The applicants started their litigation in August
2023. The order was on 21 September 2023 and the applicants had to
realise then
that the drafting of the replying affidavits was
lurking; the answering affidavits were filed on 13 October 2023. The
applicants
had to realise that the presence of their deponent was
crucial. In the least they had to open and keep open the channels to
communication
for consultations.
[22]
The
locating of documents that allegedly already existed before the
litigation was initiated cannot be a valid explanation for the
delay.
Apparently, it should have formed part of the founding
affidavits.
[11]
It is unclear
why the availability of the documents was reliant on the presence of
the deponent in South Africa.
[23]
The busy schedule of counsel cannot be an
explanation for the delay and the neglect. The fact that counsel had
to check on his property
in the Western Cape for flood damage is
beyond understanding as a reason for non-compliance with a court
order. The period that
counsel was absent was not stipulated and
again; it could not have suspended the drafting of the replying
affidavits in the light
of what was said above. The law is clear on
this. Again,
Nzima v Tourvest
Accommodation and Activities, a division of Tourvest Holdings (Pty)
Ltd
(JS562/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 337 (5
October 2021) that ruled that the courts have disapproved of busy
schedules of representatives
as a valid explanation for the delay in
complying with the rules of this court.
[34]
In
Petro
Chem Technical Service (Pty) Ltd v Motor Industry Bargaining Council
Dispute Resolution Centre and Others
[12]
the Court made reference to the following authorities and said:
“
The
Court in
Allround
Tooling v NUMSA
and
another
held
that a practitioner's busy schedule is not an acceptable explanation
for delay in observing time limits. This approach was
followed in
Minister of Social
Development v Veldhuizen
.
For this reason, the fact that the Applicant's representatives were
busy with the other applications brought forward, is insufficient.”
[24]
Settlement negotiations may not justify
non-compliance with a court order. It is a process concurrent and
parallel to existing litigation;
not a process that should obstruct
litigation. If the settlement negotiations were of such a serious
nature the parties should
have come to court and requested indulgence
for that purpose; they may not galivant on their own processes and
ignore the court.
[25]
The applicants maintain that the replying
affidavits were only 21 days late and also constitute circumstances
beyond their control.
This is not correct. The lateness of the
replying affidavits started to run on 28 October 2023 and ended on 6
December 2023. All
the circumstances were well within the control of
the applicants, their attorneys and counsel.
[26]
The applicants rely on the nature of the relief
sought as a basis for the condonation of their conduct; they want to
protect the
consortium of creditors but their actions indicate
differently. They delayed rather than expedited.
[27]
The
applicants suggested that “the lateness and/or delay had no
effect on the administration of justice and it is difficult
to fathom
what such purported effect could be.”
[13]
The respondents complain, and rightfully so, of severe prejudice due
to the late filing of the replying affidavits and the contents.
They
did not have a fair opportunity to reply and answer to the new facts
in the replying affidavits. A further prejudice is that
they would
have had to go into further litigation to remedy and answer to the
illegal conduct of the applicants. This will result
in delays and
costs.
[28]
The mere compiling and submission of the answering
affidavits to the condonation applications that formed part of the
replying affidavits,
would have added to costs and time. It would not
have resolved the issue of the new facts in reply. The respondents
did not file
answering affidavits to the condonation applications and
took issue with the manner in which the applicants litigate in their
heads
of argument.
[29]
The matter was due to proceed on 16 November 2023
and a court day was allocated. Only on 13 November 2023 was the
Registrar informed
that the matter was to be postponed; other cases
could have been accommodated on the court roll. A court day was
wasted. This affects
the administration of justice. By that time the
presiding judge had already started with the preparation of the case.
[30]
The
applicants maintain that the circumstances were “clearly beyond
the control of the applicants and their legal representatives
and
therefore they could not have acted in a manner that can be regarded
as reckless and/or intentional”.
[14]
There is not detailed evidence of this but mere swiping statements of
a person being overseas, documents that had to be traced
and
processed and an otherwise engaged counsel.
[31]
The attack on the other parties in the litigation
on the basis that they were not available on certain dates and
intentionally endeavours
to exclude crucial information is unfounded
and is bizarre:
13.7. the
condonation applications are made
bona fide
and not with the
object of delaying the hearing of the matters. Afterall, it is
vividly clear that Noordman endeavoured to arrange
dates for hearing
both matters on 30 November 2023 and 7 December 2023. These dates did
not suit either Lovius or SH as a result
of which it was ultimately
agreed that both matters be heard on 25 January 2024; and
13.8
an objection to condonation is an objection to
exclude evidence and conclusions in support of the relief
claimed by
the applicants in both applications. Such object and purpose
constitutes (sic) an abuse as it attempts to utilize strict
compliance with the timeframes provided by the Court order of 21
September 2023 to exclude valuable and material evidence and thereby
utilizing the said Court order for a purpose extraneous to the
pursuit of the truth.
[15]
The replying affidavits
were only filed on 6 December 2023; due process would have failed and
is the statement nonsensical if the
matters were set down on 30
November 2023 or 7 December 2023. The court roll could not
accommodate the dates because of other matters
already set down for
hearing. The prejudice to the other litigants is clear and they have
a right to object to the manner in which
the applicants litigated. As
said above; section 34 of the Constitution is a right not to be
abused. The respondents must be granted
an opportunity to state their
cases.
[32]
Condonation may not be granted. The refusal to
grant condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavits is
fortified by
the contents of the affidavits that are procedurally
questionable and severely prejudicial to all the respondents and the
administration
of justice. It is yet another act of non-compliance
with the law. Counsel for
Zinvonox
and Mr Olivier is correct in their submissions
that new facts were drawn in during reply:
2.5.
The applicant builds their case step by step within the replying
affidavit, new information, of which
the applicant had prior
knowledge, are only submitted in their replying affidavit, such
conduct is frowned upon as an abuse of
the process and is prejudicial
to any respondent.
2.6.
The second (sic) and Third Respondent are unable to respond and
challenge the allegations contained
within the replying affidavit.
Therefore, the replying affidavit should be dismissed and excluded
from this application.
2.7.
The applicants replying affidavit sets a new case in respect of the
following:
2.7.1. The Tender bid
with number E251091/2020 upon which the Applicant relies in its cause
of action is only mentioned in the replying
affidavit. The Second and
Third Respondent are prejudice as stated in paragraph 2.6.
2.7.2. The
applicant submits a new case for certain monies advanced to Mtetwa
based on the tender, which should be dealt with
the applicable and
relevant parties.
2.7.3. The
applicant failed to disclose relevant information in founding with
regards to prior undertakings between the Attorney
and First
Respondent, such information should have been included in the
founding, for the Second and Third Respondents to answer
to such
allegations and submissions.
2.7.4. The
applicant introduces a credit facility agreement, which is not
mentioned within the founding affidavit. Such agreement
is stated to
be the basis of the unsigned Acknowledgement of debt (sic). The
Second and Third Respondent are unable to address
this allegation, as
the Applicant precluded such information from its founding.
2.7.5. The
Applicants replying affidavit contains personal information provided
by the Third Respondent to their legal representative
as a
prospective client, to assist with a matter on the Third Respondents
behalf prior to this litigation proceedings. These persons
names are
included in the replying affidavit, they are not a party to this
litigation and such publication contravenes the Protection
of
Personal Information Act.
2.7.6. The
applicant attached a list of other agreements of which the Second and
Third Respondent have no prior knowledge,
such agreements are only
attached to the reply and not set forth in founding affidavit.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Second
and Third Respondent is
once again unable to answer (sic) these allegations, failure to
answer is prejudice (sic) the second and
third Respondent. The
applicants fail to prove that these agreements are previously
discussed with the second and third Respondents,
no submission is
found in the affidavit.
2.7.7. The
applicants rely on an acknowledgement of debt; however, the contract
is not allowed to be shared with the Second
and Third Respondents, of
which judgement is sought. It is submitted that the applicant has
contractual remedies available to redress
their liability, they could
notify the Respondents of their cancellation and could have sold the
drill to mitigate their damages,
if the applicants believe their
agreement is valid.
2.7.8. The
applicant (sic) relies on unsigned agreements.
[33]
Harms
[16]
with extensive reference to case law came to the following conclusion
with which I align myself:
It has been mentioned
that normally an applicant must stand or fall by his founding
affidavit. It follows from this that an applicant
will not be
permitted to introduce new matter in reply except within a very
narrow ambit, and the court may ignore or strike out
matter in the
replying affidavit that should have been contained in the founding
affidavit. The present tendency seems to permit
greater flexibility,
at least in the absence of prejudice. Unless there is an objection to
such new matter, the court will not
mero motu
disregard it or
strike it out. An important consideration is whether the applicant
was in possession of the “new” facts
when the founding
affidavit was prepared or whether the answer broadened the issues…
…
Main
arguments in support of the relief sought should be advanced in the
founding affidavit and not in the replying affidavit…
[34]
Costs must follow the cause. The applicants will
have to pay the costs incurred and pertaining to the application on
25 January
2024.
[35] ORDER
1.
The applications for the condonation of the late
filing of the replying affidavits in both cases with numbers
4542/2023 and 4543/2023
are denied with costs.
2.
The applicants are granted leave in both cases to
set the matter down for hearing of the merits in the main
applications.
M OPPERMAN J
Appearances
For
applicants (J.J Wolhuter N.O. and others):
L
Meintjes
Instructed
by:
Noordmans
Attorneys Inc.
Bloemfontein
Cases
no.: 4542/2023 & 4543/2023
For
first respondents
(Mtetwa
Investments (Pty) Ltd & Alfred Zakade Mtetwa):
S.J.
Reinders
Instructed
by:
Lovius
Block Attorneys
Bloemfontein
Cases
no.: 4542/2023 & 4543/2023
For
second and third respondents
(Zinvonox
(Pty) Ltd & Johannes Stephanus Olivier):
A
Smith
Instructed
by:
Shardelow
Smith Attorneys Inc.
Bloemfontein
Case
no.: 4543/2023
[1]
All
applicants in cases 4542/2023 & 4543/2023 represented by
Advocate L Meintjes. Hereafter referred to as “the
applicants”.
[2]
“
The
company”.
Represented
by Advocate S Reinders.
[3]
Referred
to as “Mr. Mtetwa”. Represented by Advocate S Reinders.
[4]
Second
and third respondents represented by Ms. A Smith. Referred to as
“Zinvonox” & “Mr Olivier”.
[5]
https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/news/publications/2023/Practice/Dispute/dispute-resolution-alert-31-january-2023-some-rules-are-meant-to-be-broken-but-at-what-cost-in-a-court-of-law.html
accessed
on 27 March 2024.
[6]
See
discussion hereunder.
[7]
Heads
of argument for the applicants dated 17 January 2024 at page 32: “It
is also evidently clear that
each
Replying Affidavit (together with annexures) consists of
approximately 411 pages
and
that each Replying Affidavit (excluding annexures) had to be
tailored in answer to the respective Answering Affidavit.”
(Accentuation added)
[8]
Heads
of argument for the respondents; Mtetwa Investments (Pty) Ltd (the
company) and A.Z. Mtetwa (Mr. Mtetwa), filed 19 January
2024.
[9]
Heads
of argument for the second and third respondents; Zinvonox (Pty) Ltd
(Zinvonox) & JS Olivier (Mr. Olivier), filed 19
January 2024.
[10]
Heads
of argument for the applicants dated 17 January 2024 at pages 32 &
33.
[11]
See
the discussion hereunder.
[12]
(2020)
41 ILJ 1216 (LC).
[13]
Heads
of argument for the applicants dated 17 January 2024 at paragraph
13.4 on page 33.
[14]
Heads
of argument for the applicants dated 17 January 2024 at paragraph
13.6 on page 34.
[15]
Heads
of argument for the applicants dated 17 January 2024 on pages 33 &
34.
[16]
Civil
Procedure,
Civil
Procedure in the Superior Courts
,
Part B High Court, UNIFORM RULE 6 APPLICATIONS, Reply and Thereafter
at
B6.37
.
Last Updated: November 2023 - SI 78.
https://www.mylexisnexis.co.za/Index.aspx
.