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 184
|
|
Minister of Police v Dyssell (28606/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 184 (24 March 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case
Number: 28606/12
Date:
24 March 2015
Not
reportable
Of
interest to other judges
In
the matter between:
MINISTER
OF
POLICE
.....................................................................................
APPLICANT
AND
LAETITIA
DYSSELL
......................................................................................
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Fabricius
J,
1
The
Applicant herein, the Minister of Police brought an application in
terms of which he sought an order that the action instituted
by the
Respondent (who was the Plaintiff in the main action), under case
number 28606/2012 be removed to the High Court of South
Africa,
Western Cape Division, Cape Town, in terms of the provisions of
S.
27
(1) (b) (ii) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
.
2.
The
Respondent, or should I rather say the Respondent’s Attorney,
managed to make a mountain out of a molehill in this application,
but
it actually turned out to be a molehill when one had regard to the
following facts which were common cause:
2.1
Plaintiff
(Respondent) is an
incola
of
the Western Cape Province;
2.2
The
Defendants (Applicants) Civil Litigation: Legal Section, which
handles this claim, is located in the Western Cape;
2.3
The
cause of action arose in the Western Cape;
2.4
The
documents required for the action are all in the Western Cape;
2.5
The
Respondent’s Attorney, Mr Erwee, practices in Mussina;
2.6
The
Gauteng High Court and the Western Cape High Court have concurrent
jurisdiction in this matter;
2.7
Mr
Erwee acts on a contingency basis for the Respondent and the
provisions of the
Contingency Fees
Act 66 of 1997
are therefore
applicable;
2.8
Clause
8 of the contingency fee agreement deals with disbursements made by
Mr Erwee in the following manner:
2.8.1
Disbursements and expenses will be paid by Mr Erwee and shall in the
first place be recovered from the proceedings once the
claim has been
finalised;
2.8.2
The disbursements will thereafter be claimed from the opponents and
upon receipt thereof, the client would be refunded.
2.9
Mr
Erwee has instituted approximately 250 similar actions in this Court;
2.10
All
the plaintiffs in these actions reside in the Western Cape;
2.11
All
the causes of action in these cases arose in the Western Cape;
2.12
The
Plaintiff (the Respondent herein) did not make a confirmatory
affidavit and we therefor do not know what she regards as to be
convenient to her in the litigation affecting her.
3.
I
accept that in an application of this nature one should consider the
convenience of all the parties as well as the convenience
of the
Court.
4.
It
is clear from the Respondent’s Answering Affidavit, or rather
Mr Erwee’s Answering Affidavit, that he is mainly concerned
about his own financial interests. Very general allegations are
however also made in this particular context and very little, if
any,
facts are given. He however states that there are no Attorneys in the
Western Cape who would be prepared to act on a contingency
fee basis.
I found this an astounding allegation, and of course no particular
facts are given in this context. The question would
also arise: how
does an Attorney practicing in Mussina 1900km away from his clients
in the Cape, manage to obtain 250 clients without
some type of
support system in Cape Town? We do not have any factual allegations
in this context, but merely on a practical and
logical basis one
would assume that he has some type of support system in Cape Town. As
far as other allegations about expenses
are concerned, including
those of experts, we do not know who those experts are, in which case
they would be necessary, and why
they would all have to be from
Pretoria.
5.
Taking
all of these considerations into account, I am of the view that the
Applicant has made out a proper case.
The
application is therefore granted in terms of the Draft Order annexed
hereto as Annexure X.
_____________________________
JUDGE
H.J FABRICIUS
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA
I
Agree
____________________________
JUDGE
M. F. LEGODI
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA
I
Agree
____________________________
JUDGE
D. S. MOLEFE
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA
24
March 2015