South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPPHC 154

| Noteup | LawCite

Dale v Riaan Du Plessis Attorneys and Conveyancers and Others (38406/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 154 (28 February 2022)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

                       

                                                                       

                        CASE NO:38406/2020

DOH: 21 FEBRUARY 2022

                                                           

 



In the matter of:



DALE IRENE                                                                                                        Applicant

 

and

                         

RIAAN DU PLESSIS ATTORNEYS & CONVEYANCERS                          First Respondent

JOHANNES CHRISTIAN DU PLESSIS                                                           Second Respondent

P J KLEYNHANS INCORPORATED    ATTORNEYS                                  Third Respondent

LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL                                                                         Fourth Respondent

 

JUDGMENT

THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN REMOTELY AND SHALL BE CIRCULATED TO THE PARTIES BY WAY OF EMAIL. ITS DATE AND TIME OF 2022/02/28

 

A. Introduction

 

1.  This matter was heard on 21 February 2022.

2.  The second respondent practices as a sole practitioner. Thus, notwithstanding the citation of the first and second respondents, they are essentially the same person. The third and fourth respondents are not participating in this matter. For that reason, I use respondent when referring to the first and second respondents.

3.  The applicant, as the party that is dominus litis, bears the responsibility to ensure that her papers are in order.

4.  Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules is applicable. Ex facie the papers, Rule 63 has not been complied with. Thus, there is no application before court. On that basis, the ‘application’ cannot succeed.

 

B. Order

5.  In the circumstances, I make the following order:

(i)   The application is dismissed.

(ii)  The applicant must pay the first and second respnodents’ costs.

 



NN BAM

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

 

Appearances:

Counsel for the applicants:                    Adv Mureriwa                                             

Instructed by:                                            Makota Attorneys

                                                                       

 

For the respondents                                Adv Grobler SC

Instructed by:                                            JC Du Plessis Attorneys

                                                                  ℅ Jansen and Jansen