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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 339
|
|
South African Civil Aviation Authority v J and Others, In Re: J and Others v South African Civil Aviation Authority (46840/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 339 (3 March 2015)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG,
PRETORIA)
CASE NO:
46840/2014
DATE: 3 MARCH
2015
In the matter
between:
SOUTH AFRICAN
CIVIL AVIATION
AUTHORITY
...........................................................
APPLICANT
AND
L[...] J[...]
V[...]
R[...]
...................................................................................................
FIRST
RESPONDENT
K[...] J[...]
J[...] V[...] R[...]
(duly represented
by L[...] J[...] v[...] R[...]
As his natural
mother and holder of parental
Responsibilities
and
rights)
.......................................................................................
SECOND
RESPONENT
J[...] D[...]
J[...] V[...] R[....]
(duly represented
by L[...] J[...] v[...] R[...]
As his natural
mother and holder of parental
Responsibilities
and
rights)
.......................................................................................
THIRD
RESPONDENT
In Re:
L[...] J[...]
V[...]
R[...]
.......................................................................................................
FIRST
APPLICANT
K[...] J[...]
J[...] V[...] R[...]
(duly represented
by L[...] J[...] v[...] R[...]
As his natural
mother and holder of parental
Responsibilities
and
rights)
........................................................................................
SECOND
APPLICANT
J[...] D[...]
J[...] V[...] R[...]
(duly represented
by L[...] J[...] v[...] R[...]
As his natural
mother and holder of parental
Responsibilities
and
rights)
...........................................................................................
THIRD
APPLICANT
AND
SOUTH AFRICAN
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
WEBSTER J
1. The applicant
seeks an order in the following terms:
“
1.
That the Applicant
be and is hereby granted condonation for the late filing of the
opposing affidavit in the main application;
2. That the
Applicant pays the wasted costs occasioned by such late filing of the
opposing affidavit; and
3. Further and/or
alternative relief.”
2. The history to
the matter is as follows:
An
application was launched by the first to third respondents to this
application. In accordance with the Uniform Rules of Court
the
applicant had to file its answering affidavit by 25 July 2014.
On
23 July 2014, the attorneys for the applicant sent a letter to the
attorneys for the respondents requesting an extension of
two weeks
for the filing of opposing papers. This letter was transmitted to
the attorneys for the respondents via fax transmission.
On
25 July 2014, a second letter again from the applicant’s
attorneys was sent to the respondents’ attorneys requesting
an
answer to the request for the extension for the filing of the
opposing papers. This second letter was likewise sent via fax
transmission.
On
11 August 2014, a third letter was sent by the applicant’s
attorneys to the respondents’ attorneys enquiring whether
the
respondents were proceeding with the application set down on 12
August 2014 on the unopposed motion roll. The following appears
at
the second paragraph:
“
2.
Kindly
indicate to us as to whether your office will be proceeding with the
application as set down for 12 August 2014 on the
unopposed roll. We
reiterate that we are opposing the application and will be filing
our opposing papers in due course."
This
letter was likewise sent via fax transmission.
The
deponent to the founding affidavit to this application, Poppy Khoza,
is also the deponent to the answering affidavit in the
main action.
Her schedule is attached to the founding affidavit marked Annexure
“A” and sets out her daily activities
during the months
July to September 2014. The answering affidavit was served on the
respondents’ attorneys on 26 September
2014, approximately
thirty (30) court days after the date to which extension was
requested.
Subsequently
this application was served and filed on the respondents’
attorneys on 6 November 2014 informing them of the
date of hearing
on 6 January 2015.
The
application for condonation was unopposed and there was no
opposition in court either.
3. Very little
information is disclosed to this court about the main action. No
mention is made of when the main action is before
court. In the case
of Hall v The Head, Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit of The
National Prosecuting Authority 2010 JDR 0973 (GNP)
Hiemstra AJ stated
the following:
“
...to
condone the
unexplained filing of the answering affidavits almost six months out
of time, would be to condone contumacious flouting
of the Rules of
Court...
”
It
has to be mentioned that in the case quoted above, an application for
condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit
was filed
“...one
court
day before the hearing of the matter...”.
The
application for condonation was subsequently dismissed.
4.
However, the facts in this matter differ slightly from the Hall case
{supra).
The
answering affidavit was filed two calendar months after the initial
due date. Furthermore no opposing papers were filed and
in the
absence of a date the court cannot infer that the respondents would
be prejudiced by granting the condonation application.
It is clear
from the record that the applicant’s attorneys endeavoured to
get a response from the respondents’ attorneys
regarding an
extension of time for the filing of the answering affidavit which was
not forthcoming.
5. In light of the
circumstances set out above, the following order is granted:
1. That the
Applicant’s late filing of the opposing affidavit in the main
application be and is hereby granted;
2. That the
Applicant pay the wasted costs occasioned by such late filing of the
opposing affidavit.
G. WEBSTER
JUDGE IN THE HIGH
COURT