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
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAGPPHC 344
|
|
Minister of Safety and Security v Matseke (23000/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 344 (6 August 2019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED.
Case
No: 23000/2013
6/8/2019
In
the matter between:
THE
MINISTER OF SAFETY &
SECURITY
APPLICANT
and
MORAKE
ISAAC MATSEKE
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1.
This
application concerns the manner in which this matter was attended to
and dealt with by the State Attorney. The manner in which
the State
Attorney dealt with this matter can at best be described as
unacceptable, shocking and horrific. It seems that the State
Attorney
did very little to attend to this matter as one would expect from a
responsible, diligent and reasonable attorney.
1.1.
The
Minister of Police, formerly known as the Minister of Safety and
Security, is the Applicant in this application. The Applicant
is
confronted with a claim, on face value, in an amount of R147 615
000,00.
1.2.
Mr
Morake Isaac Matseke is the Respondent in this application. The
Respondent is the Plaintiff in the pending action that was initiated
by him in this Court on 18 April 2013.
1.3.
The
Applicant is the First Defendant in the pending action.
1.4.
Warrant
Officer Stone Maboko is the Second Defendant in the pending action.
1.5.
The
State Attorney is the Applicant's attorney of record.
2.
The Applicant applies in this
application for an order in the following terms:
"1.
That this Honourable Court's order striking the
Applicants/Defendant’s defence
be and
is
hereby rescinded;
2.
That
Applicant/Defendant be and is hereby granted leave to put up
a
defence to the Respondent/Plaintiffs
claim/action;
3.
That
costs occasioned by this application be
costs
in the main action; and
4.
That
Applicant/Defendant be and is hereby granted such further and/or
alternative relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.
"
3.
This
application was issued by the Registrar of this Court on 28 June 2017
and delivered at the offices of the Respondent's attorney
of record
on 29 June 2017.
4.
In
the event that the Respondent decides to oppose this application, he
is called upon to do the following:
4.1.
To
file his notice of intention within a period of 10 days after service
of the application; and
4.2.
To file his answering affidavit, if any,
within 15 days thereafter.
5.
The Respondent filed and delivered his:
5.1.
Notice of intention to oppose this
application on 14 July 2017, i.e. one day late; and
5.2.
Opposing affidavit on 7 August 2017,
also one day late.
The Respondent made no effort or
attempt to apply for condonation for the late filing of either the
notice of intention to oppose,
or his opposing affidavit.
6.
The
Applicant made no effort or attempt since it received the
Respondent's opposing affidavit on 7 August 2017, to pursue this
application. In particular:
6.1.
The
Applicant failed and omitted to file a replying affidavit;
6.2.
The
Applicant made no effort to set this application down for hearing.
The Respondent's attorney filed and delivered a notice of
set-down on
5 June 2019, in terms of which this application was set-down for
hearing on Monday, 5 August 2019;
6.3.
The
Applicant made no effort or attempt to file its practice note and
heads of argument as provided for in this Court's practice
directive.
The Respondent filed and delivered his practice note and concise
heads of argument on 31 May 2019; and
6.4.
The
Applicant provided me with its heads of argument on 22 July 2019
electronically (via e-mail).
7.
Paragraph
18.14 of the code of conduct for all legal practitioners which was
published in the Government Gazette, Notice 198 of
2019, on 29 March
2019 provides for the following:
"An
attorney shall perform
professional work or work of
a
kind commonly performed by an
attorney with such
a
degree of skill, care or attention, or of
such
a
quality or standard,
as
may reasonably be
expected of an attorney."
It will appear from this judgment
that the State Attorney did not comply with this standard of
professional conduct.
THE
RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION
8.
The
Respondent (as Plaintiff) initiated legal action against the
Applicant (as the First Defendant) and Warrant Officer Maboko (as
the
Second Defendant) in this Court on 18 April 2013. On a proper
interpretation and analysis of the allegations contained in the
Respondent's particulars of claim, the following is evident:
8.1.
Members of the South African Police
Services arrested the Respondent on 23 January 2005, allegedly for
the hijacking of a motor
vehicle;
8.2.
The Respondent was detained at the
Barberton Maximum Prison from 12 June 2008 until 18 April 2011; and
8.3.
The Respondent allegedly suffered
damages for the loss of freedom, trauma and damage to his dignity and
reputation in an amount
of R6 million.
9.
The combined summons was served by the
Sheriff of this Court at the office of the State Attorney on 19 April
2013. The combined
summons was not served on Warrant Officer Maboko.
As a matter of fact, Warrant Officer Maboko is not implicated in the
Respondent's
arrest on 23 January 2015. Warrant Officer Maboko's name
is, apart from his citation in paragraph 2 of the particulars of
claim,
not mentioned anywhere else in the Respondent's particulars of
claim.
10.
The Applicant instructed the State
Attorney to represent it in this matter and to defend the
Respondent's claim on its behalf. The
State Attorney filed and
delivered a notice of intention to defend on behalf of both the
Defendants, the Applicant and Warrant
Officer Maboko, on 29 April
2013. I assume for purposes of this judgment that the State Attorney
decided to file and deliver a
notice of intention to defend on behalf
of both the Applicant and Warrant Officer Maboko, by reason of the
fact that the Respondent
claims judgment against the Applicant and
Warrant Officer Maboko jointly and severally, the one to pay the
other to be absolved.
It appears that Warrant Officer Maboko is
totally unaware of the existence of the claim that was instituted by
the Respondent against
him. The Respondent claims a substantial
amount of money from Warrant Officer Maboko, notwithstanding the fact
that the combined
summons was not served on Warrant Officer Maboko,
but the State Attorney has decided to file a notice of intention to
defend on
behalf of the Applicant and Warrant Officer Maboko.
11.
To add insult to injury, the Respondent
instructed his attorney to amend the amount of damages he claims from
the Applicant and
Warrant Officer Maboko. The Respondent amended the
amount which he claims on 30 April 2015. The initial amount of R6
million was
amended to no less than R147 615 000,00. The State
Attorney did not file an objection to this amendment.
12.
The Respondent's cause of action against
the Applicant and Warrant Officer Maboko is formulated as follows:
“
The Plaintiff was
detained at Barberlon Maximum Prison from 12 June 2008 until 18 April
2011, in total my client spent 6 years,
2 months and 3 weeks in
prison for
no just cause.
At all material times, the
policeman were acting within the cause and scope of employment of
South African Police Services."
13.
The State Attorney instructed counsel to
prepare a plea on behalf of, ostensibly, the Applicant and Warrant
Officer Maboko. The
plea was delivered at the offices of the
Respondent's attorney on 13 May 2013 and filed at the Registrar of
this Court's office
on 20 June 2013. On a proper reading of the plea
it seems that the author thereof was instructed to formulate the plea
on behalf
of the
"Defendant".
Counsel made the following averments
in the plea:
13.1.
"The
Defendant has read the Plaintiff particulars of claim and replies
thereto as follows.”
13.2.
"In
the premise the Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs claim be
dismissed with costs.”
13.3.
"The
Defendant has no knowledge of the information contained herein and
therefore can neither deny nor admit
same.”
13.4.
"Wherefore
the Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs claim be dismissed with
costs."
13.5.
"Dated
on this the 15
th
day of May 2013 Tracey Williams Counsel for the Defendant."
14.
The State Attorney initiated an
amendment of the Applicant's plea and a notice of the Applicant's
intention to amend its plea was
filed and delivered on 26 September
2013, in terms of which the Applicant intended to introduce a special
plea of non joinder.
I accept for purposes of this judgment that
the amendment was effected, as envisaged in Rule 28(5) and (7) of
this Court's rules.
15.
The State Attorney introduced no less
than four special pleas. The purpose of this judgment is not to
pronounce on the merits of
any of the special pleas. It seems,
however, that the special pleas which were introduced by the
Applicant are formulated or drafted
in the form of an exception. The
Respondent's particulars of claim seems,
prima
facie,
to be excipiable. The purpose
of this judgment is not to pronounce on whether or not the
Respondent’s particulars of claim
is excipiable. What is
important is the fact that the Respondent's entire claim is premised
on the fact that he was incarcerated
and detained at Barberton
Maximum Prison for
"no just
cause".
THE
ESSENCE OF THIS APPLICATION
16.
The Respondent initiated an application
to compel the Applicant and Warrant Officer Maboko to file and
deliver their discovery affidavit,
as envisaged in Rule 35 of this
Court's rules. The application to compel discovery was delivered at
the offices of the State Attorney
on 30 April 2015. From a proper
reading and interpretation of the application it seems that the
Respondent's attorney intended
to set the application down for
hearing on 10 June 2015 at 10h00, in the event that no notice of
intention to oppose the·
application is delivered.
17.
It seems that the application to compel
discovery was not:
17.1.
opposed by either the Applicant or
Warrant Officer Maboko; and
17.2.
set-down for hearing on 10 June 2015.
18.
This Court (Koovertjie AJ) made an order
on 23 June 2015 (and not on 10 June 2015) in terms of which the
Applicant and Warrant Officer
Maboko were ordered to file and deliver
their discovery affidavit within a period of 1O days after the
service of the order on
their
"attorneys"
of record. Upon a proper analysis
and investigation from the documents which are contained in the Court
file, the following issues
are of paramount importance:
18.1.
Was a notice of set-down delivered at
the offices of the State Attorney, in terms of which the application
to compel discovery was
set-down for hearing on 23 June 2015, instead
of 10 June 2015?
18.2.
Was the order that was granted by
Koovertjie AJ on 23 June 2015 properly
"served"
on the Applicant and Warrant Officer
Maboko's “
attorneys of record”,
as provided for in the Court order
dated 23 June 2015?
19.
It is, on the papers before me, evident
that the Applicant and Warrant Officer Maboko failed or neglected to
comply with the Court
order dated 23 June 2015. This resulted in an
application that was initiated by the Respondent's attorney on 6
October 2016, in
terms of which the following relief was applied for:
“
1.
That the Respondents' defence be strike out and/or alternatively
dismissed;
2.
That
the Respondents' be ordered to pay the costs of this application on
the scale
of
attorney
and own client;
3.
Further
and/or alternative relief.
”
20.
The application to strike out the
Applicant's defence was delivered at the offices of the State
Attorney on 6 October 2016. The
State Attorney deliberately and
intentionally failed and omitted to:
20.1.
file and delivered a notice of intention
to oppose this application;
20.2.
file an answering affidavit; and
20.3.
instruct counsel to attend the hearing
of the application on 20 January 2017.
21.
The State Attorney did absolutely
nothing to oppose the application or to file and deliver an opposing
affidavit prior to the hearing
of the application on 20 January 2017.
The State Attorney
knew
that
the Applicant was faced with a claim in the amount of R147 615
000,00, but notwithstanding this astronomical claim, the State
Attorney decided to turn a blind eye on the application. This Court
(Maumela J) made the following order on 20 January 2017:
“
1
The Respondents' defence is struck out;
2.
That
the Respondents are ordered and directed
to
pay the cost of this application on a
scale as between attorney and his own client jointly and severally.”
22.
On a proper reading of the papers before
me, the following aspects must be canvassed and addressed:
22.1.
When and how was the Court order which
was made on 20 January 2017 brought to the attention of the Applicant
and Warrant Officer
Maboko?
22.2.
Did the Respondent's attorney serve the
Court order which was made on 20 January 2017 on the Applicant, at
the offices of the State
Attorney, or on Warrant Officer Maboko?
23.
The answers to the aforementioned
questions are important for purposes of this application which serves
before me today. The Respondent
raises a
"special
point in /imine",
in terms of
which he suggests that this application is
"out
of time and 113 days late".
The
Respondent asks this Court to dismiss this application and to order
the State Attorney to pay the costs of this application
de
bonis
propriis.
The following important
evidence is unfortunately absent from the Respondent's opposing
affidavit, namely:
23.1.
Was the order that was made by this
Court on 20 January 2017 served on either the Applicant or Warrant
Officer Maboko?
23.2.
If so, how (in which manner) was the
aforementioned Court order served?
24.
The aforementioned aspects are addressed
by the Respondent in the following manner in his opposing affidavit:
"2.1.19
On the 14
th
of February 2017, my attorney advised the
Applicant's attorneys an order striking the Applicant's defence was
granted, which the
Applicant's attorney advise my attorney that his
client's discovery affidavit was served on the my attorney's of
record, I annex
hereto a copy of the file note, marked Annexure
"MM4".
2.1.20
On the 15
th
of February 2017, a letter was addressed to
the Applicant's attorneys first confirming that the order was granted
and secondly
denying that such affidavit was served on my attorney's
of record, a copy is annex hereto marked Annex "MM5".
2.1.21
On the 27
th
of February 2017, the Applicant's attorney
addressed a letter to my attorney advising that the discovery
affidavit was served on
my erstwhile attorneys, Mokgatle Leshole
Attorneys, however my attorneys enquire from my erstwhile attorneys
and no discovery affidavit
was found, I annex hereto a copy of letter
marked Annexure "MM6".
2.1.22
On the 28
th
of February 2017, a letter was addressed to
the Applicant's attorneys advising him that an order was granted, a
copy of the letter
is annex hereto marked Annnexure "MM7"."
25.
The Respondent furthermore relies,
insofar as service of the order that was granted on 20 January 2017
is concerned, on a letter
which his attorney addressed to the State
Attorney on 28 February 2017. This letter is attached to the
Respondent’s opposing
affidavit, marked Annexure "MM7".
It is, however, not clear from the letter whether or not a copy of
the Court order
dated 20 January 2017 was attached thereto. The
Respondent's attorney directed the State Attorney's attention to the
following:
"Kindly be advised that we
have already advised you that we have obtained
a
date of hearing
of the default application, which date will be served on your office
in due course.
We once more advise that you
client's defence
was
strike out on the
20
th
of January 2017.
Kindly note that we strictly
reserves our client's rights.
We trust you find the above to
be in order and await your offer of settlement
"
The Respondent's intention is
clear : he intends to apply to this Court for default judgment in the
amount of R147 615 000,00 in
due course.
THE
MERITS OF THIS APPLICATION
26.
Lt Colonel Tubane deposed to an
affidavit in support of the relief applied for by the Applicant in
this application. Lt Colonel
Tubane is a legal administration officer
in the employ of the South African Police Service. One of her
responsibilities is to attend
to the litigation on behalf of the
Applicant. The State Attorney decided not to file any affidavit in
this application which serves
before me today. In my
view
this
was
a
tactical decision to avoid an
unpleasant or uncomfortable situation. The State Attorney had
sufficient opportunity to explain himself/herself,
but has decided to
remain silent. This silence is in my view compelling and decisive.
27.
It is difficult to understand the reason
why an attorney would do nothing to avoid a crisis. The State
Attorney is duty bound to
protect its client's rights vigorously
without any fear or favour. The State Attorney did nothing to oppose
the application in
terms of which the Applicant's defence was struck
out. The Applicant is therefore confronted with a claim in an amount
of R147
615 000,00.
28.
Lt Colonel Tubane concedes the following
important aspects in her affidavit:
28.1.
The
Applicant failed to comply with an order that was made by this Court
on 23 June 2015, in terms of which the Applicant was ordered
to file
its discovery affidavit;
28.2.
The
Applicant's initial plea constitutes "a
bare
denial";
28.3.
The
Applicant, or the State Attorney, made no effort or attempt to oppose
the application in terms of which the Respondent applied
for the
Applicant's defence to be struck out; and
28.4.
The
manner in which this matter was dealt with is unacceptable and the
Applicant acted in a manner which can be described as
"tardy".
29.
Lt Colonel Tubane submits in her
affidavit that:
29.1. The Applicant
has a
bona fide
defence against the Respondent's claim; and
29.2. The order that
was granted on 20 January 2017 was granted in the Applicant's
absence.
30.
The Respondent opposes this application
for the rescission of the order that was made by this Court on 20
January 2017 vigorously.
It is the Respondent's case that this
application constitutes an abuse of this Court's process and that the
Applicant is the author
of its own misfortune.
31.
The Applicant, on the other hand, raises
the following important issues:
31.1.
The Respondent was arrested by members
of the South African Police Service on 23 January 2005. It is, on the
papers before me, uncertain
whether or not the Respondent initiated a
bail application. It is furthermore uncertain whether or not the bail
application was
successful. Be that as it may, it is, on the papers,
evident that the Respondent was charged with no less than 14 counts.
The Respondent
was accused no. 2 and he was found guilty on counts 2,
3, 4, 5, 8, 12 and 14. The Magistrate imposed the following sentence:
-
Counts
2, 4, 5, 8 and 12 : 15 years imprisonment on
each
of the
aforementioned counts.
-
Counts
3 and 14 : 5 years imprisonment on
each
of the afore
mentioned counts.
31.2.
The Magistrate furthermore made an order
in the following terms:
"The Court orders that the
sentences be served in such
a
fashion that the
accused serves an effective term of 35 years imprisonment in terms of
Section 280(2)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977
."
31.3.
The Respondent was released from prison
on 18 April 2011, ostensibly after he successfully appealed the
convictions referred to
herein
supra;
31.4.
The Applicant did not detain the
Respondent at Barberton Maximum Prison;
31.5.
The Respondent's cause of action, i.e.
"unlawful arrest and detention"
arose on 23 January 2005, i.e. the
date upon which he was arrested by members of the South African
Police Service;
31.6.
Warrant Officer Maboko is not implicated
in the manner in which the Respondent was arrested or detained. The
Respondent has,
prima facie,
failed
to sustain a cause of action against Warrant Officer Maboko;
31.7.
The Respondent's claim against the
Applicant has
prima facie
become
prescribed;
31.8.
The Respondent has failed and omitted to
join the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Correctional
Services in the main action.
The Respondent was detained at Barberton
Maximim Prison which falls under the auspices of the Minister of
Correctional Services.
The Applicant did not detain the Respondent;
31.9.
The Respondent was sentenced to
imprisonment by virtue of an order thatwas made by a competent Court.
The allegation that the Respondent
was detained for
"no
just cause"
is therefore
without any merit and fundamentally misconceived; and
31.10.
The
police docket is missing. It cannot be obtained, notwithstanding a
diligent search. The transcript of the Court proceedings
in the
Regional Court was subsequently obtained. The record is, to say the
least, a mess. It is incomplete and the following certificate
appears
on the record:
"The following problems
were experienced while transcribing this matter and
as
a
result there
are "indistincts/ inaudibles" in the record:
1.
Prosecutor mic off
or
faulty .
2.
Background noise
-
screeming.
3.
Witness mic off or faulty.
4.
Defence
mic off or faulty.
"
HAS A PROPER CASE BEEN MADE
OUT FOR THE SETIING ASIDE OR THE RESCISSION OF THE ORDER THAT WAS
MADE ON 20 JANUARY 2017 IN THE APPLICANT'S
ABSENCE?
32.
The Applicant brings this application in
.accordance with the common law principles for the rescission of a
judgment that was granted
by default. Counsel on behalf of the
Applicant submits that it is only expected from the Applicant to
demonstrate that it has a
bona fide
defence against the Respondent's
claim. Counsel furthermore submits that it is unnecessary to
demonstrate
"good cause"
in
the event that an application for the rescission of default judgment
is initiated. These submissions are, unfortunately, fundamentally
misconceived and bad in law.
Rule 31(2)(b)
of this Court's rules
provides for the following:
"A defendant may within 20
days after he or she has knowledge of such judgment apply to Court
upon notice to the plaintiff
to set-aside such judgment and the Court
may, upon good cause shown, set-aside the default judgment on such
terms
as
to
it seems meet.
"
33.
The Respondent, in his heads of
argument, relies,
inter alia,
on
an unreported judgment in the matter
of
E H Hassim Hardware (Pty) Ltd v FAB Tanks CC (1129/2016)
[2017] ZASCA 145
(13 October 2017)
in
which the Supreme Court of Appeal held as follows:-
"13.
Equally trite is the principle that even when all the requirements
set out above have been met,
it is still within the
discretion
of the
Court whether or not to rescind the judgment. That discretion must be
exercised judicially in the light of all the facts
and circumstances
of
the
case."
34.
The fact hat the Applicant made no
effort to explain what it did since it became aware of the existence
of the order that was made
on 20 January 2017 is a factor that I
should consider in the broad spectrum of this application. The
Applicant did little, or nothing,
to bring this application within a
period of 20 days after it became aware of the existence of the
order. This omission is not
decisive.
35.
The manner in which the State Attorney
dealt with this matter is unacceptable and shocking. Policy
considerations and common sense
dictate that the Applicant should be
afforded an opportunity to defend a claim of this magnitude. The
Respondent has decided to
increase the amount which he claims from
the Applicant from R6 million to R147 615 000,00. In the event that
judgment is eventually
granted by default against the Applicant, the
taxpayer will be responsible for the payment of the amount which the
Respondent claims.
The Respondent's claim seems to be excessive and
exorbitant.
36.
The Applicant has succeeded in
demonstrating that it has a
bona fide
defence against the Respondent's
claim. The State Attorney could have done much more to avoid the
order that was made by this Court
on 20 January 2017. The State
Attorney could have filed a discovery affidavit, on the same basis as
the Respondent formulated his
discovery affidavit. The Respondent
deposed to a discovery affidavit on 12 February 2014. The Respondent
discovered, apart from
the pleadings and notices filed under case no.
23000/2013, absolutely nothing. The Respondent discovered no
documents in support
of its claim in the amount of R147 615 000,00.
37.
I am therefore satisfied that the
Applicant has made out a proper case for the rescission of the
judgment that was made by this
Court on 20 January 2017. The
Registrar of this Court issued the following notice on 11 September
2014, which notice is on the
Court file:
"With reference to the
above matter please be advised that the office of Chief Justice has
decided to embark on a case flow
management project and your file has
been identified as one of the files which will be used to pursue
conduct phase 1 of the case
flow management project. The purpose of
the project is to reduce unnecessary delays in finalization of
matters and advance greater
efficiency in the case flow management.
Any documents that you need to
file from now onwards must be filed in office no. 8.41 on the 8th
Floor at the High Court
of
South Africa,
Gauteng Division, Pretoria and please quote our reference number in
all your pleadings, correspondence preferably
underneath the
case
number."
38.
It seems that the
parties ignored the aforementioned directive. The purpose of the
directive is to ensure that this matter forms
part of a formal case
flow management process, presided over by a Judge and to avoid any
unnecessary delays in the finalization
of the matter. I am of the
view that a Judge should be appointed as a case flow manager and to
assist the parties in the expeditious
finalization of this matter.
CONCLUSION
39.
The
State Attorney is not a party in this application. I considered to
make an order in terms of which the State Attorney is called
upon to
submit reasons why he/she should not pay the costs of this
application
de bonis propriis.
An
order in this regard will result in a further delay. It is not in the
interests of justice to delay this matter any further.
Lt Colonel
Tubane conceded that the Applicant's attorney could have done more to
avoid the predicament in which the Applicant finds
itself in. It
therefore follows that the Applicant should be held responsible for
the costs occasioned by this application.
40.
I am therefore satisfied that a case has
been made out for the rescission of the order which was made by this
Court on 20 January
2017 in terms of which the Applicant's defence
was struck out with costs on the scale as between attorney and own
client. It is
furthermore in the interests of justice that the
Applicant should be afforded an opportunity to present and canvass
its defences
in relation to the Respondent's claim as formulated and
pleaded in his particulars of claim. It will be an absolute travesty
of
justice in the event that the Respondent is allowed to pursue his
claim for damages on an unopposed basis, i.e. by default. Logic
and
commonsense dictate that the Applicant should be afforded an
opportunity to contest the Respondent's claim for the damages
he
allegedly suffered as a result of him being arrested on 23 January
2005.
41.
The Applicant seeks an indulgence. The
Applicant did not comply with the order that was made by this Court
on 20 January 2017, by
virtue of the fact that its attorney (the
State Attorney) made no, or little., effort to do what is expected
from an officer of
this Court. The State Attorney's attitude can
therefore be described as
"laissez
faire”.
The Applicant should
therefore be held responsible for the costs occasioned by this
application, such costs to be paid on the scale
as between attorney
and client.
42.
In the premise I make an order in the
following terms:
1.
The
order made by this Court on 20 January 2017 in terms of which the
Applicant's defence was struck out with costs on the scale
as between
attorney and own client, is set-aside and rescinded;
2.
The
Applicant (as First Defendant) is ordered to file its discovery
affidavit within a period of 10 days from date hereof;
3.
The
parties are ordered to comply with the cash flow management notice
that was issued by the Registrar of this Court on 11 September
2014.
The parties should therefore address a letter to the office of the
Deputy Judge President of this Court within a period of
10 days from
date hereof, to apply for the appointment of a case flow manager in
the person of Judge to facilitate the expeditious
finalization of
this matter; and
4.
The
Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application on the
scale as between attorney and client.
F
W BOTES
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
OF
SOUTH AFRICA