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
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAFSHC 159
|
|
Lechoano v Mogotsi and Others (3227/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 159 (10 September 2018)
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case number: 3227/2018
In
the matter between:
MOALEDI
ANDRIES
LECHOANO
APPLICANT
and
LEBEKO
ANDRIES
MOGOTSI
1
ST
RESPONDENT
PRECINCT
FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
2
ND
RESPONDENT
ABSA
BANK
LTD
3
RD
RESPONDENT
FIRST
NATIONAL
BANK
4
TH
RESPONDENT
CORAM:
M
OPPERMAN, J
HEARD
ON:
16
AUGUST 2018
JUDGEMENT
BY:
M
OPPERMAN, J
REASONS
ON:
10
SEPTEMBER 2018
1.
On
the 20
th
of August 2018 the following was filed with the court:
Request
for reasons in terms of Rule 49(1)(c). The 1
st
respondent hereby requests the Honourable Mrs. Acting Justice Lanie
Opperman for reasons for the order granted on Thursday, 16
August
2018 and more specifically the reason(s) why the 1
st
respondent was ordered to pay the wasted costs of the extension of
the Rule Nisi.
2.
The
matter was placed for argument by the 1
st
respondent on the 16
th
of August 2018 as opposed motion.
3.
The
matter was not placed for the mere extension of the
Rule
Nisi
on the 16
th
of August 2018.
4.
On
22
nd
of June 2018 the applicant sought and obtained an urgent interdict in
terms of which the 1
st
and 4
th
respondents are interdicted from paying monies from the two accounts
of the 1
st
respondent, held by the 3
rd
respondent and 4
th
respondent, before the dispute between the parties is resolved by
agreement or order of court.
5.
The
Rule
Nisi
was granted on an
ex
parte
basis and the 1
st
respondent only gained knowledge of it approximately a week after it
was granted.
6.
Subsequent
hereto the parties herein held a mediation in which a settlement was
concluded.
7.
The
matter was placed on the unopposed motion court roll for the
settlement to be made an order of the court.
8.
According
to counsel for the applicant the 1
st
respondent opposed the motion for the settlement to be made and order
of court.
9.
The
matter was placed on the 16
th
of August 2018. The 1
st
respondent wanted to argue the matter but counsel for applicant
indicated that he was not in a position to argue the matter because:
9.1
“
On
2
nd
July no opposition was filed.
9.2
the
opposing affidavit was only received yesterday (15 August 2018),
9.3
this
morning they want to argue the case,
9.4
the
right to reply was not entertained and
9.5
the
settlement was not dealt with.
9.6
No
heads of arguments were filed.”
10.
Counsel
for 1
st
respondent conceded to the above and requested for the costs for the
day to be costs in the cause. Counsel for the applicant requested
an
order against the 1
st
respondent for the wasted day.
11.
The
day was wasted by the 1
st
respondent. The court therefor made the order for costs against the
1
st
respondent.
12.
In
addition to the above it is noted that the 1
st
respondent; in their Heads of Argument filed on 27 August 2018, prays
for condonation of the late filing of their Heads of Argument.
Justification for the order on the 16
th
of August is confirmed hereby and the conduct persists.
M
OPPERMAN, J
ATTORNEY
FOR THE 1
ST
RESPONDENT: M.L ODENDAAL
PHATSHOANE
HENNEY
35
Markgraaf
Westdene
Bloemfontein
Ref:
MOG58/0001/mlo
ATTORNEY
FOR THE APPLICANT: PIETER WILLERS
WILLERS
ATTORNEYS
52
Reid Street
Westdene
Bloemfontein