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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 329
|
|
Wilge Hervormde Gemeente and Others v Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk Van Afrika and Another (5167/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 329 (13 May 2021)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case
Number: 5167/2016
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED
DATE:
13 MAY 2021
In
the matter between:
DIE WILGE HERVORMDE
GEMEENTE
First
Plaintiff
DIE WILGE
VERENIGING
Second
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
GROOTVLEI
Third
Plaintiff
DIE GEMEENSKAP VAN
GELOWIGES GROOTVLEI
Fourth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
KOSTER
Fifth
Plaintiff
DIE DIAMANT
VERENIGING
Sixth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
MEYERSPARK
Seventh
Plaintiff
MEYERSPARK
CHRISTELIKE VERENIGING
Eighth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
NOORDELIKE PIETERSBURG
Ninth
Plaintiff
YSTERBERG
VERENIGING
Tenth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
SCHWEIZER-RENEKE
Eleventh
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE KERK
VERENIGING SCHWEIZER-RENEKE
Twelfth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
PREMIERMYN
Thirteenth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
PRETORIA TUINE
Fourteenth
Plaintiff
SAAMSTAAN
VERENIGING
Fifteenth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
THERESAPARK
Sixteenth
Plaintiff
THERESAPARK
VERENIGING
Seventeenth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
RUSTENBURG
Eighteenth
Plaintiff
RUSTENBURG
CHRISTELIKE VERENIGING
Nineteenth
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
VREDE
Twentieth
Plaintiff
NH VREDE
EIENDOMSVERENIGING
Twenty-First
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
DENDRON/VIVO
Twenty-Second
Plaintiff
DE LOSKOP/BLOUBERG
VERENIGING
Twenty-Third
Plaintiff
HERVORMDE GEMEENTE
OOSTELIKE PIETERSBURG
Twenty-Fourth
Plaintiff
MOREGLOED
HULPVERENIGING
Twenty-Fifth
Plaintiff
And
NEDERDUITSCH
HERVORMDE KERK VAN AFRIKA
First
Defendant
DIE REGISTRATEUR
VAN AKTES, PRETORIA
Second
Defendant
JUDGMENT
JANSE VAN
NIEUWENHUIZEN J
[1]
This matter pertains to the
unfortunate rift between members of the Christian faith. It involves
the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk
van Afrika, one of the oldest
Reformed Christian denomination churches in South Africa. The dispute
pertains to the ownership of
immovable property.
[2]
The dispute commenced in 2010, when
certain congregations of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika
(“NHKA”), being
the plaintiffs, decided to break their
ties with the NHKA. Following the aforesaid decision and during 2010
to 2014 the plaintiffs
transferred their immovable properties to
various separate voluntary associations.
[3]
The transfers led to a host of
separate legal actions and the parties, in an effort to curtail the
flood of litigation between them,
agreed in 2016 that the plaintiffs
would institute the present action.
[4]
The plaintiffs issued summons on 22
January 2016, in essence seeking an order that it may by majority
vote decide to sell, donate
or transfer its immovable property to an
outside party.
[5]
The NHKA defended the claim and
contends that the plaintiffs may not sell, donate or transfer
immovable property to an outside third
party if it is not in terms of
the Church Order and Constitution.
[6]
The NHKA also instituted a
counterclaim, claiming an order declaring that the transfer of the
properties by the plaintiffs be declared
unlawful and for the
retransfer of the properties.
[7]
The matter was case managed by Fourie
J who issued an order in terms of rule 33(4) on 11 June 2018.
The following issue was
separated from the remainder of the disputes:
“
Kan
lidmate of ‘n gemeente van die NHKA wat probleme het binne of
met die NHKA en/of wil wegbreek en/of weggebreek het uit
die NHKA, by
meerderheidsbesluit die bates van ‘n gemeente van die NHKA aan
vrywillige verenigings of gemeentes wat buite
die NHKA funksioneer
vervreem.”
[8]
Loosely translated the separated
issue pertains to the question whether members or a congregation of
the NHKA who have problems
within or with the NHKA and/or want to
break away and/or has broken away from the NHKA may by a majority
decision sell or donate
its assets to a voluntary association or
another congregation that does not form part of the NHKA.
[9]
The trial was initially set down for
hearing from 26 October 2020 to 13 November 2020.
[10]
On the first day of the hearing, I
was informed by Mr Du Plessis SC, counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr
Vermeulen SC, then counsel
for the NHKA, that by agreement between
the parties, the trial will commence with a point
in
limine
pertaining
to the
locus standi
of the NHKA. The
plaintiffs contended that the NHKA did not have the necessary
authorisation to defend the action and institute
a counterclaim.
[11]
Due to problems experienced by
counsel for the NKHA, the trial could not proceed in October 2020 and
was postponed to 29 March 2021.
[12]
Shortly before 29 March 2021, the
plaintiffs brought an application to declare that the attorney acting
on behalf of the NHKA does
not have the necessary authority to act on
behalf of the NKHA in the litigation. The plaintiffs further seek an
order in terms
of which the NHKA’s plea and counterclaim be
struck and that the NHKA be afforded a period of 30 days to deliver a
plea and
counterclaim, if properly authorised to do so. The NHKA
opposes the application.
[13]
In view of the aforesaid, the hearing
only proceeded in respect of the application and the point
in
limine
.
Rule 7 application and
point
in limine
[14]
The rule 7(1) reads as follows:
“
Subject
to the provisions of subrule (2) and subrule (3) a power of attorney
to act need not be filed, but the authority of anyone
acting on
behalf of a party may, within 10 days after it has come to the notice
of a party that such person is so acting, or with
the leave of the
court on good cause shown at any time before judgment, be disputed,
whereafter such person may no longer act unless
he satisfied the
court that he is authorised so to act, and to enable him to do so the
court may postpone the hearing of the action
or application.”
[15]
It is not clear from the papers when
Mr Griffiths (“Griffiths”), the attorney acting on behalf
of the NHKA served the
notice of intention to defend. The plea and
counterclaim was, however, served on the 30
th
of June 2016 and in the best-case
scenario for the plaintiffs the rule 7(1) notice should have
been served on Griffiths on
or before the 14
th
of July 2016.
[16]
The notice was only served on
Griffiths on 9 March 2021, some five years out of time. To cure this
problem, the plaintiffs included
a prayer in the notice of motion in
terms of which leave is sought to dispute the authority Griffiths at
this late stage.
[17]
It is apposite to mention that rule 7
is only concerned with the authority of an attorney to act in
instituting or defending legal
proceedings on behalf of a party.
[See:
Eskom v Soweto
City Council
1992
(2) SA 703
W]
[18]
In answer to the notice, the NHKA
delivered an affidavit deposed to by Joël Daniël Fourie
(“Fourie”) in his
capacity as chairperson of the NHKA’s
litigation committee. Fourie confirmed in the affidavit that he was
properly mandated
by the NHKA to appoint Griffiths.
[19]
I pause to mention that Griffiths has
been representing the NHKA from the onset of the litigation between
the parties.
[20]
The plaintiffs were not satisfied
with Fourie’s authority to act on behalf of the NHKA and
launched the present application.
[21]
It became clear from the founding
affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs in
actual fact dispute the authority
of the litigation committee to act
on behalf of the NHKA. This is the same point that was raised as a
point
in limine
.
As set out
supra
,
the parties agreed at the previous hearing that the authority/
locus
standi
point will
be adjudicated first.
[22]
Mr Du Plessis readily agreed that
should the court find in favour of the NHKA on the authority point,
the mandate of Griffiths is
no longer in issue. In other words, it is
not Griffith’s mandate that is in dispute, but rather the
authority of the person
who provided him with the mandate.
Issue in dispute
[23]
Was the litigation committee of the
NHKA authorised to instruct Griffiths to defend this action and to
institute a counterclaim
against the plaintiffs?
Relevant legal
instruments
[24]
In order to ascertain whether the
litigation committee had the necessary authority to act on behalf of
the NHKA, the first instrument
to consider is the Constitution of the
NHKA. The following provisions are relevant and will be cited with a
loose translation:
24.1
clause 6.2.20: “
Die Algemene Kerkvergadering is ‘n
vergadering wat bestaan uit afgevaardigde ampsdraers van al die
gemeentes van die NHKA,
asook predikante met besondere opdrag.”;
[The General Church
Meeting (“GCM”) is a meeting consisting of delegated
office bearers from all the congregations of
the NHKA, as well as
ministers who have a special mandate.]
24.2
clause 6.2.21: “
Die Algemene Kerkvergadering se opdrag
behels die orderlike toerusting, opbouing, versorging en beskerming
van die ringsvergaderings,
die gemeentelike vergaderings van die
ampte en die gemeentes van die NHKA.”;
[The GCM’s mandate
to oversee the orderly equipping, construction, care and protection
of the presbytery (ring) meetings,
the congregational meetings of the
office bearers and the congregations of the NHKA.]
24.3
clause 6.2.23: “
Die Kommissie van die Algemene
Kerkvergadering vergader minstens een maal per kwartaal en voer
opdragte uit wat in die kerkorde
en deur die Algemene Kerkvergadering
aan hom opgedra word.”;
[The Commission of the
General Church Meeting (“Commission”) meets at least once
per quarter and executes orders that
emanate from the church order
and are referred to it by the GCM.]
24.4
clause 7.6: “
Die Algemene Kerkvergadering is gemagtig om
alle regshandelinge, van watter aard ookal, namens the NHKA te
verrig, maar is nie bevoeg
om met ringfondse en gemeentelike bates te
handel nie.”
;
[The GCM is authorised to
conduct all legal acts, of whatever nature, on behalf of the NHKA but
which authority does not include
any matters concerning presbytery
(ring) funds and the assets of the congregations.]
24.5
clause 7.7: “
Die Kommissie van die Algemene Kerkvergadering
gee leiding aan en hou opsig en toesig oor ringsvergaderings, rade en
werkgroepe,
gee uitleg aan die kerkorder, voer opdragte van die
Algemene Kerkvergadering aan hom opgedra uit, en is slegs tot hierdie
mate
gemagtig om die NHKA regtens te verbind, maar is nie bevoeg om
gemeentes regtens te verbind nie.”
[The Commission of the
GCM provides guidance and supervises presbytery (ring) meetings,
councils and workgroups, interprets the
church order and executes
orders received from the GCM. These powers are the only source of
authority to bind the NHKA. The Commission
does not have to the
authority to legally bind the congregations.]
[25]
In terms clause 3.10.2 of the Church
Order the Commission has,
inter
alia
, the following
powers:
25.1
clause (x): “
Voer opdragte wat die Algemene Kerkvergadering
aan hom opdra uit.”
[To execute instructions
received from the GCM.]
25.2
clause (xv): “
Benoem na die sitting van die Algemene
Kerkvergadering rade en komitees om spesifieke take te verrig.”
[To appoint, after a
meeting of the GCM, councils and committees to execute specific
tasks.]
25.3
clause (xvii): “
Bepaal, koördineer en kontroleer
opdragte vir die onderskeie rade en komitees.”
[Determines, coordinates
and controls instructions for the various councils and committees.]
25.4
clause (xx): “
Praat, getuig en tree namens die kerk op
wanneer die Algemene Kerkvergadering nie in sitting is nie.”
[Speak, testify and act
on behalf of the NHKA when the GCM is not in session.]
Facts
[26]
Fourie explained in his affidavit
that due to the array of litigation during 2011, the Commission
appointed the Litigation Committee
to represent the NHKA in the
various legal proceedings it was involved in.
[27]
The plaintiffs pointed out that the
Litigation Committee that was appointed on 24 August 2011 was only
mandated to deal with a case
brought by the Hervormde Kerksvereniging
at the time.
[28]
At a meeting of the Commission on 5
and 6 September 2012, the following decision was taken:
“
Die
Kommissie van die AKV besluit soos volg:
(1)
Om in alle opsigte voort te gaan
met litigasie.
[To proceed with
litigation in all respects.]
(2)
Gee opdrag aan die
litigasiekomitee om te doen wat nodig is om gemeentelike eiendomme
terug te transporteer.
[The Litigation Committee
is instructed to do all that is necessary to ensure the retransfer of
the congregational properties.]
(3)
Die samestelling van die
litigasiekomitee ter wille van kontinuïteit te kontinueer totdat
die 70ste AKV of the Kommissie van
die AKV daarna anders besluit.
”
[In order to ensure
continuity, the present Litigation Committee will continue in its
present form until the 70
th
GCM or the Commission decides
otherwise.]
[29]
Fourie was from the outset the
chairperson of the Litigation Committee.
[30]
The 70
th
GCM took place during 2013 and the
decision of the Commission to litigate was recorded as follows:
“
Vir
sovêr dit regtens moontlik mag wees, bekragtig die Algemene
Kerkvergadering die handelinge van die Kommissie van die Algemene
Kerkvergadering en individue wat in opdrag van die Kommissie van die
Algemene Kerkvergadering opgetree het en gee aan die nuwe
Kommissie
die opdrag en mandaat, vir sovêr dit regtens nodig mag wees, om
hierdie proses en litigasie voort te sit of by
te lê en in die
algemeen sodanige stappe te neem as wat nodig mag wees om die regte
en belange van die Nederduitsch Hervormde
Kerk van Afrika, die ringe,
gemeentes en lidmate te beskerm.”
[Insofar as it is legally
possible, the GCM ratify the actions of the Commission and
individuals that acted on instructions of the
GCM and herewith give
to the new Commission the instruction and mandate, insofar, as it may
be legally necessary, to proceed with
the litigation or to settle the
matter and to take in general, all steps as may be necessary to
protect the rights and interests
of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Church
of Africa, its presbyteries (rings), congregations and members.]
[31]
According to Fourie, the Litigation
Committee reported regularly to the Commission and the GCM in respect
of the steps that were
taken in the pending legal proceedings.
[32]
Fourie explained that Judge Fourie
was appointed between the 70
th
sitting of the GCM in 2013 and the
71
st
sitting in 2016 to manage the various
legal proceedings between the plaintiffs and the NHKA. Under the
guidance of Judge Fourie
the parties agreed that the plaintiffs would
issue this action. The Litigation Committee mandated its legal
representatives to
conclude the agreement with the plaintiffs and to
defend the action to be instituted. The summons was issued on 22
January 2016.
[33]
At the next meeting of the GCM after
summons was issued, which meeting was held from 2 to 6 October 2016,
Fourie addressed the meeting
on the status of the litigation between
the plaintiffs and the NHKA. Subsequent to a discussion in respect of
the litigation, the
following motion was accepted:
“
Die
Algemene Kerkvergadering neem kennis van die litigasieproses tot
dusver, en bekragtig die optrede van die Litigasiekomitee.
Die
Algemene Kerkvergadering magtig die Komissie en die Litigasiekomitee
om verder in belang van die Kerk die nodige stappe te
neem.”
[The General Church
Meeting takes notice of the litigation process thus far and ratifies
the conduct of the Litigation Committee.
The General Church Meeting
authorises the Commission and the Litigation Committee to take the
necessary steps to protect the interests
of the Church.]
Submissions on behalf
of plaintiffs
[34]
The plaintiffs contend that the
provision of clause 7.7 of the Constitution, which provides that the
Commission may only act in
terms of the authority given by the GCM is
relevant. This clause read together with clause 3.10.2 (xx) of the
Church Order, which
provides that the Commission may act on behalf of
the NHKA when the GCM is not sitting must, according to the
plaintiffs, be interpreted
to entail that the Commission may only act
when the GCM is not sitting, in matters that it was authorised to act
in.
[35]
The interpretation contended for by
the plaintiffs does not take cognisance of the provisions of clause
3.10.2 (x) which authorises
the Commission to execute instructions
received from the GCM.
[36]
The Commission’s power to act
on behalf of the GCM, has therefore, in terms of the Church Order,
two sources. The Commission
may:
[36.1]
in terms of clause 3.10.2 (x) execute instructions
received from the
GCM; and
[36.2]
in terms of clause 3.10.2 (xx) represent the NHKA
when the GCM is not
sitting.
[37]
The plaintiffs further contend that,
in terms of clause 7.9 of the Constitution, the Council of Finance is
authorised to manage
the funds of the NHKA. The Council of Finance
may, however, only create liabilities on behalf of the NHKA with the
permission of
the GCM. The Commission may, therefore, not create
liabilities by instituting or defending legal proceedings, without
the permission
of the GCM, which it did not obtain prior to the
decision by the Commission to defend the present action.
[38]
This submission, in my opinion,
suffers the same fate as the submission in respect of the powers of
the Commission when the GCM
is not sitting. If the Commission could
for a three year period not spend money on litigation, the NHKA would
be in the invidious
position that it could not defend or institute
any legal proceedings that might crop up in the three-year period
between sittings.
[39]
Lastly, the plaintiffs submit that,
although the Commission may act on behalf of the NHKA when the GCM is
not sitting and may appoint
committees, there is no express provision
in the Constitution or Church Order that allows the Commission to
delegate its power
to act on behalf of the NHKA to any such appointed
committee.
[40]
In the result, the Commission did not
have the necessary power to delegate all of its discretionary powers
pertaining to the litigation
to the Litigation Committee and the
Litigation Committee, in turn, did not have the necessary authority
to defend the action and
institute a counterclaim.
[41]
The plaintiffs then proceed to
consider the question of sub-delegation i.e. whether the Constitution
and Church Order provides implied
powers of sub-delegation.
[42]
The submissions in respect of the
delegation of authority are discussed
infra
.
Submissions on behalf
of NHKA
[43]
Mr Raath SC, counsel for the NHKA,
submitted that, having regard to the lengthy history of the
litigation between the parties, the
lateness of the rule 7
application is fatal.
[44]
I tend to agree. A huge amount of
costs has been incurred from the outset of the various legal
proceedings between the parties over
the past ten years. Griffiths
has at all relevant times during the lengthy litigation been the
attorney of record for the NHKA.
It is hugely prejudicial to the
interests of the NHKA to raise the point that Griffiths was never
authorised to act on the NHKA
at this late stage.
[45]
That is, however, not the end of the
matter.
[46]
As set out
supra
,
the parties agreed at the previous hearing that the
locus
standi
point will
be dealt with
in
limine
.
The issue that arises from the point
in
limine
is
the same issue raised by the rule 7 application, to wit, did the
Litigation Committee have the necessary authority to represent
the
NHKA and instruct Griffiths to act on behalf of the NHKA.
[47]
The point, therefore, has to be
determined, whether it is in terms of the provisions of the rule 7 or
the point
in limine
.
[48]
The NHKA firstly, contends that all
steps taken by the Litigation Committee were ratified by both the
Commission and the GCM. The
Commission had at all relevant times the
authority to act on behalf of the NHKA and therefore the ratification
removes the plaintiffs
attack on the authority of the Litigation
Committee to act on behalf of the NHKA in this matter.
[49]
Secondly, the history of the
litigation between the parties, provides proof that Griffiths had the
necessary authority to act on
behalf of the NHKA in the present
action.
[50]
In respect of the point that the
Litigation Committee exercised all the discretionary powers of the
Commission, Mr Raath submitted
as follows:
50.1 it is common
cause that the Commission may act on behalf of the NHKA in the
litigation;
50.2 due to the
Commission’s composition and operations it is impossible to
control the litigation directly; and
50.3 the Commission
has in terms of clause 3.10.2 (xv) the power to appoint the
Litigation Committee to attend to the litigation
and as envisaged in
clause 3.10.2 (xvii) the Commission may determine, coordinate and
control the tasks assigned to the Litigation
Committee.
[51]
In the result the Litigation
Committee has the authority to represent the NHKA and to instruct
attorneys on its behalf. Consequently,
the rule 7 application and the
point
in limine
should be dismissed
with costs.
Discussion
[52]
The first question to be answered is
whether the Commission did delegate its powers to litigate to the
Litigation Committee. If
so, I agree with Mr Du Plessis that neither
the Constitution nor the Church Order of the NHKA expressly provides
for the delegation
of the Commission’s power to litigate to a
sub-committee.
[53]
Once the aforesaid finding is made,
it will be necessary to consider the plaintiffs further point on
sub-delegation.
[54]
If one has regard to the minutes of
the Commission’s meeting during September 2012, it is clear
that the Commission decided
to proceed with all litigation, including
the institution of proceedings to claim the retransfer of the
property of the congregations,
to wit:
“
Die
Kommissie van die AKV besluit soos volg:
(1)
Om in alle opsigte voort te gaan
met litigasie.
[To proceed with
litigation in all respects.]
(2)
Gee opdrag aan die
litigasiekomitee om te doen wat nodig is om gemeentelike eiendomme
terug te transporteer.”
[The Litigation Committee
is instructed to do all that is necessary to ensure the retransfer of
the congregational properties.]
[55]
This decision was endorsed at the
70
th
sitting
of the GCM in 2013 and a mandate was provided to proceed with the
litigation, namely:
“…
..en
gee aan die nuwe Kommissie die opdrag en mandaat, vir sovêr dit
regtens nodig mag wees, om hierdie proses en litigasie
voort te sit
of by te lê en in die algemeen sodanige stappe te neem as wat
nodig mag wees om die regte en belange van die
Nederduitsch Hervormde
Kerk van Afrika, die ringe, gemeentes en lidmate te beskerm.”
[…..and herewith
give to the new Commission the instruction and mandate, insofar, as
it may be legally necessary, to proceed
with the litigation or to
settle the matter and to take in general all steps as may be
necessary to protect the rights and interests
of the Nederduitsch
Hervormde Church of Africa, its presbyteries (rings), congregations
and members.]
[56]
The litigation was once again
discussed and the Litigation Committee was mandated to proceed with
litigation at the 71
st
sitting of the GCM in 2016, to wit:
“
Die
Algemene Kerkvergadering neem kennis van die litigasieproses tot
dusver, en bekragtig die optrede van die Litigasiekomitee.
Die
Algemene Kerkvergadering magtig die Komissie en die Litigasiekomitee
om verder in belang van die Kerk die nodige stappe te
neem.”
[The General Church
Meeting takes notice of the litigation process thus far and ratifies
the conduct of the Litigation Committee.
The General Church Meeting
authorises the Commission and the Litigation Committee to take the
necessary steps to protect the interests
of the Church.]
[57]
One should bear in mind that the
various litigation processes that commenced in 2012, culminated in
the present action being instituted.
The Commission took the decision
in 2012 to litigate. The decision was not delegated to the Litigation
Committee.
[58]
The Litigation Committee was merely
tasked with the day to day running of the litigation. Once a decision
to litigate has been taken,
the necessary procedural steps are
prescribed by law. This would include consultations to provide the
necessary background information
for the purposes of a plea and
counterclaim, the provision of documents for discovery, the answering
of a request for further particulars
or pre-trial conference
questions.
[59]
It does not appear from the facts
that the Litigation Committee did anything else than to provide the
NHKA’s legal team with
the necessary information to execute the
decision taken by the Commission and the GCM to litigate.
[60]
The Commission and the GCM were kept
abreast of the litigation process, monitored the process and provided
further instructions
to the Litigation Committee. From the moment
that the Commission decided to defend the claims against the NHKA and
to claim the
retransfer of the properties of the congregations, the
litigation that followed was authorised. The fact that it was agreed
to
combine the different legal processes did not change the initial
decision to litigate. The agreement was a mere continuation of
the
pending litigation.
[61]
In the premises, the decision by the
Commission in 2012 to litigate culminated in the plea and
counter-claim filed herein and the
NHKA has the necessary
locus
standi
to litigate
in this matter.
[62]
Mr Griffiths, similarly, has the
necessary authority to represent the NHKA in these proceedings.
Reserved costs
[63]
As stated
supra,
the trial that
commenced in October 2020 was postponed due to the unavailability of
counsel for the NHKA. It follows that any wasted
costs occasioned by
the postponement should be borne by the NHKA.
Order
[64]
In the premises, I grant the
following order:
1.
The application and point
in
limine
is dismissed
with costs.
2.
The first defendant is ordered to pay
the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial in
October 2020.
N. JANSE VAN
NIEUWENHUIZEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
DATE
HEARD PER COVID19 DIRECTIVES:
29 March 2021 to 1 April 2021
(Virtual
hearing.)
DATE
DELIVERED PER COVID19 DIRECTIVES:
13 May 2021
APPEARANCES
Counsel
for the Plaintiffs
Advocate
R. du Plessis SC and
Advocate
N. Smit
Instructed
by:
Ross
& Jacobsz
Mr
A van Eck and Ms M Smith
Counsel
for the First Defendant:
Advocate
R.J
.
Raath
SC
and
Advocate
L. Miller
Instructed
by:
Eben
Griffiths Attorneys
Mr
E. Griffiths