MEMORANDUM: GROUP WORK QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1
(a)(i)The ex parte application. Notice of the proceedings need not be given to another person, because the applicant is the only person whose rights and/or interests are affected by the application. (2)
(S/U 2.2.1)
(ii)Notice of Motion and the founding affidavit. (S/U 2.3) (2)
(iii)The application is used to institute an action, while an interlocutory application is used to obtain relief during/in the course of proceedings that have already been instituted, and which relates to such proceedings. (S/U 2.2.3) (2)
(iv)The application should set forth concisely the nature and extent of the claim (1), the grounds upon which it is based (1), and upon which the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim (1), as well as the manner of service which the court is asked to authorise.(1) (4)
(S/U 5.3.2 and Rule 5(2)).
NOTE: These are the material provisions of Rule 5(2). Students could have mentioned service on the last known address and queries in that regard in the place of any of the above for one mark. It was essential to have studied the Rule as instructed to answer this question. [10]
(b)(i)A provisional sentence summons is used if the claim is based on a liquid document. The nature of the claim (ejectment) falls within the definition of a debt or liquidated demand (therefore not a liquid document). (S/U 7.2.2; 6.2.2) (2)
(ii)Summary judgment. (S/U 12.4) (1)
(iii)Y must give X a notice of bar ito Rule 26 (1) in which X is requested to deliver a declaration within specific dies induciae. (1) If X still fails to deliver, he is in default iro the declaration and will be ipso facto barred. (1) (S/U 12.3.1) (3)
(iv)Plea on the merits; replication (S/U 9.3 and 9.4) (2)
(v)Any two of the following
- Discovery
- Expert evidence
- Specification of documents and tape recordings to be used during trial
- Presentation of plans, sketches, models and photos. (S/U 13) (2)
NOTE:Other answers that could be considered : inspection and medical reports/hospital records. [10]
[20]
QUESTION 2
(a)(i)A provisional sentence summons can only be issued if the claim is based on a liquid document. In this instance this is not the case and the claim falls within the definition of a ‘debt or liquidated demand’, indicating the use of a simple summons. (2)
(Study Unit 6.2 and 7.2)
(ii)A defence is raised by way of a plea on the merits. A notice of intention to defend is simply a notice by the defendant that s/he intends opposing the matter. (2)
(Study Unit 9.2 and 9.3)
(iii)B is not in default as he did not fail to deliver a pleading or process in time. X can apply for summary judgment in these circumstances (summary judgment usually follows on a simple summons – see (i) above) if he is of the opinion that the necessary grounds (no bona fide defence and appearance noted simply to delay proceedings) are present. (2)
(Study Unit 12.3 and 12.4)
Note: If students indicated that default judgment was not possible and that the next step was the filing of a declaration, a half mark was awarded for this.
(iv)X must deliver a plea on the merits in reconvention, as X is in the same position as a defendant in convention that has to respond to the plaintiff’s claim. A replication is filed by the plaintiff if the defendant raises new matters in his/her plea on the merits. (2)
(Study Unit 9.3)
Note: Students often battled with this question, and if they at least indicated that a plaintiff in convention could file a replication to the defendant’s plea, a half mark was awarded.
(v)X should apply for arrest suspectus de fuga. Arrest ad fundandam iurisdictionem relates to the vesting of a court with jurisdiction in respect of a foreign peregrine, while in this instance X needs to secure an incola defendant’s presence to ensure an effective judgment. However, the procedure is probably unconstitutional: see Malachi v Cape Dance Academy International (Pty) Ltd 2010 6 SA 1 (CC). Arrest for jurisdictional purposes is unconstitutional: seeBid Industrial (Pty) Ltd v Strang 2008 3 SA 355 (SCA).
(2)
(Study Unit 16.3)[10]
VRAAG 1
(a)(i)Die ex parte aansoek. Geen kennis van die verrigtinge aan ‘n ander persoon gegee hoef te word nie, aangesien die applikant die enigste persoon is wie se regte en/of belange deur die aansoek geraak word. (2)
(S/E 2.2.1)
(ii)Kennisgewing van Mosie en die stawende beëdigde verklaring. (S/E 2.3)
(2)
(iii)Die aansoek word gebruik om ‘n geding mee in te stel, terwyl ‘n interlokutoriese aansoek gebruik word om regshulp te vorder tydens verrigtinge wat reeds ingestel is en wat verband hou met sodanige verrigtinge. (2)
(S/E 2.2.3)
(iv)Die aansoek moet op saaklike wyse die aard en omvang van die eis uiteen sit (1), die gronde waarop dit berus (1), en waarop die hof jurisdiksie het om die eis te bereg (1), asook die wyse van betekening wat die hof gevra word om te magtig (1). (4)
(S/E 5.3.3 en Reël 5(2))
Nota: Hierdie is die wesentlike aspekte wat in Reël 5(2) voorgeskryf word. Studente kon ook genoem het (vir een punt benewens of in plaas van enige van bg) dat indien betekening nie persoonlik is nie, moet die laas bekende verblyfplek genoem word en aandui watter navrae gedoen is om die huidige verblyfplek vas te stel. Die maksimum punte bly egter vier. [10]
(b)(i)‘n Voorlopige vonnisdagvaarding word gebruik indien die eis gebaseer is op ‘n likwiede dokument. Die aard van die eis (uitsetting) val binne die omskrywing van ‘n skuld of gelikwideerde vordering (dus duidelik nie ‘n likwiede dokument nie). (2)
(S/E 7.2.2; 6.2.2)
(ii)Summiere vonnis. (1)
(S/E 12.4)
(iii)Y moet aan X ingevolge Reël 26 ‘n kennisgewing van belet gee (1) waarin X aangesê word om die deklarasie af te lewer binne ‘n bepaalde dies induciae. (1) Indien X steeds versuim sou hy in verstek wees tav die deklarasie en ipso facto onder belet wees. (1) (3)
(S/E 12.3.1)
Nota: Die prosedure is getoets. Desondanks kan ‘n halwe punt hierbenewens gegee word indien gemeld word dat daar dan verder aansoek gedoen kan word om “vonnis of absolusie van die instansie”(ingevolge Reël 31(3)). In die praktyk is uiteindelik ‘n halfpunt vir enige van die twee se noem gegee!
(iv)Verweerskrif (op die meriete / pleit) ; repliek (2)
(S/E 9.3 en 9.4)
Nota: Indien die volgorde verkeerd is, maar die pleitstukke korrek is, word ‘n maksimum van een punt gegee (regte volgorde uitdruklik vereis).
(v)Enige twee van die volgende
- Blootlegging;
- deskundige getuienis;
- spesifisering van dokumente en bandopnames wat by die verhoor gebruik gaan word;
- die aanbieding van planne, tekeninge, modelle en foto’s.(2)
(S/E 13)
Nota: Ander antwoorde wat oorweeg kan word is mediese verslae/hospitaaloorkondes/X-straalfoto’s. Baie studente het foutiewelik insae en voorverhoorkonferensie aangedui. [10]
[20]
VRAAG2
(a)(i)‘n Voorlopige vonnisdagvaarding kan net uitgereik word indien die eis gebaseer is op ‘n likwiede dokument. In hierdie geval is dit nie die geval nie, en die eis val binne die definisie van ‘n “skuld of gelikwideerde vordering” wat aandui dat ‘n eenvoudige dagvaarding gebruik moet word. (S/E 6.2 en 7.2)
(2)
(ii)‘n Verweer word geopper dmv ‘n verweerskrif op die meriete. ‘n Kennisgewing van voorneme om te verdedig is bloot ‘n kennisgewing dat ‘n persoon die aksie wil verdedig. (S/E 9.2 en 9.3) (2)
(iii)B is nie in verstek nie, want hy het nie versim om ‘n pleit- of prosesstuk betyds af te lewer nie. X kan aansoek doen om summiere vonnis in hierdie omstandighede indien hy meen die nodige gronde is aanwesig (B het geen bona fide verweer nie of dat hy die aksie probeer vertraag). (2)
(S/E 12.3 en 12.4)
Nota: Kediet word gegee indien aangedui word dat verstekvonnis nie moontlik is nie, en dat die deklarasie moet volg.
(iv)X moet ‘n pleit op die meriete in rekonvensie aflewer, want X is in dieselfde posisie as ‘n verweerder in konvensie wat op die eiser se eis moet reageer. (S/E 9.3) (2)
(v)X moet aansoek doen aansoek doen om arres suspectus de fuga. Arres ad fundandam iurisditionem hou verband met die vestiging van jurisdiksie tav ‘n vreemde peregrinus, terwyl X in hierdie geval wil poog om die teenwoordigheid van ‘n incola te verseker om ‘n effektiewe vonnis te verkry.
(S/E 16.3) (2)
Nota: Hierdie prosedure is waarskynlik onkonstitusioneel: sien Malachi v Cape Dance Academy International (Pty) Ltd2010 6 SA 1 (CC). Arres vir jurisdiksiedoeleindes is onkonstitusioneel: Bid Industrial (Pty) Ltd v Strang 2008 3 SA 355 (HHA).