IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable: YES/NO
Of interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO
In the matter between:
JAN JACOB STEPHANUS DU TOIT
HELENAJOHANNADUTOIT
and
JACOBUS PETRUS LEE
JAKKALSFONTEIN VOERKRALE (PTY) LTD
GERRIT DU PLOOY
J AND G HUIDE EN VELLE (PTY) LTD
M~MBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, FREE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC, SMALL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS
THE MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION
In Re:
JAN JACOB STEPHANUS DU TOIT
HELENA JOHANNA DU TOIT
and
JACOBUS PETRUS LEE
JAKKALSFONTEIN VOERKRALE (PTY) LTD
GERRIT DU PLOOY
J AND G HUIDE EN VELLE (PTY) LTD
Case no: 6331/2022
First Applicant
Second Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent
First Applicant
Second Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, FREE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC, SMALL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS
THE MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION
Coram: Van Zyl, J
Heard: 20 June 2024
Delivered: 19 December 2024
Summary:
2
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent
Filing by the applicants of an interlocutory application to adduce further evidence -
suspends the handing down of the judgment on the merits of the main application,
without dealing with or deciding the merits of the interlocutory application - the
merits of the interlocutory application is to be determined during the adjudication
thereof in due course.
ORDER
1. The handing down of the judgment on the merits of the main application is
suspended pending the adjudication of the applicants' interlocutory application
to adduce further evidence.
2. The parties are ordered to postpone the date of the hearing of the interlocutory
application to a date to be determined between the parties, but which date is
to be within the Court term and is to be arranged in conjunction with the
Registrar of Van Zyl, J.
JUDGMENT
Van Zyl, J
[1] In the litigation between the present parties more than one application has
served before Court to date. For purposes of this judgment, the application issued
3
by the applicants on 19 March 2024 will be referred to as the main application. In
terms of the main application the applicants are seeking the following relief:
'1. That the Court grants an order in terms of which paragraphs two (2) and three (3) of the
interim order granted by this Court under civil case number 6331/2023 on 4 January
2024 be deleted.
2. That the First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents be ordered to pay the costs of
this application on an attorney and client scale, such costs to include the costs
occasioned by two counsel.'
[2] The main application served before me on 19 June 2024 and judgment was
reserved. Since the hearing of the main application three sets of documents have
been filed by or on behalf of the fifth and/or the sixth respondents, filed on 18
October 2024, 21 October 2024 and 23 October 2024 respectively. The filing of the
said documents emanates from previous orders made against the fifth and sixth
respondents, the detail of which is not relevant for purposes of this judgment.
[3] I was contemplating on handing down the judgment on the merits of the main
application during the week ending 20 December 2024. However, on 11 December
2024 the applicants filed an interlocutory application to adduce further evidence in
the main application and ancillary relief in relation to costs. Due to administrative
reasons on the side of the General Office at Court, the said application was only
handed to me on Tuesday, 17 December 2024.
[4] Without considering the merits of the interlocutory application, it follows that I
cannot hand down the judgment on the merits of the main application without first
having adjudicated the interlocutory application. The handing down of the judgment
on the merits of the main application is consequently to be suspended pending the
adjudication of the interlocutory application.
[5] In the Notice of Motion filed in the interlocutory application the applicants
indicated that they intend applying for an order in terms thereof on 16 January 2025.
However, 16 January 2025 falls within Court recess and on the presumption that
the interlocutory application will be opposed, it will consequently not be possible to
entertain the application during Court recess. The parties will therefore have to
postpone the interlocutory application on 16 January 2025 to a date within the Court
4
term, which date is to be arranged between the parties. Since I am seized with this
matter, the parties will have to ensure, considering my other Court obligations, that
I will be available on the said date. The parties' arrangement of a suitable date will
therefore also have to be done in conjunction with my Registrar.
[6] I consequently make the following order:
1. The handing down of the judgment on the merits of the main application
is suspended pending the adjudication of the applicants' interlocutory
application to adduce further evidence.
2. The parties are ordered to postpone the date of the hearing of the
interlocutory application to a date to be determined between the parties,
but which date is to be within the Court term and is to be arranged in
conjunction w ith the Registrar of Van Zyl, J.
On behalf of Applicants:
On behalf of First - Fourth Respondents:
Adv N Snellenburg SC
Assisted by:
Adv R van der Merwe
Instructed by:
Honey Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
Ref: CH du Plessis/lm/I33703
E-mail: casper@hon eyinc.co.za
jacobs@honeyinc.co.za
lvoigt@honeyinc.co.za
Adv P Lazarus SC
Assisted by:
Adv DE Hugo
Instructed by:
Christo Reeders Attorneys
c/o Webbers Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
R,ef: M Koller/nd/CHR28/0006
E-mail: mp@w ebb(;ffSlaw.com
hcr@crattorneys.co .za