NDOU J: This
matter was set down on the opposed roll for 28 October 2011. On that date the applicant's representative
indicated that she applied "for the set down to be set aside". I understand her to seek a postponement or
for the matter to be struck off the roll.
She indicated that the applicant was not served with the notice of set
down as required by the rules. She
stated that the applicant was not given sufficient time to prepare for the
case. She went on to say a lot of other
things which made her application difficult to follow. She said she became aware of the set down by
chance when she came to this court to follow up a letter. The bottom line is that all she required is
time to adequately prepare for the hearing.
It seems to me that the respondents are opposed to the application. This matter has been characterized by
cross-reference matters, unnecessary arguments and unending issues. There is need to bring finality in this
matter.
I understand why the respondents are
objecting to the postponement. The
parties should not dwell too much on the technical issues. They should move towards dealing with the
real dispute between the parties. Petty
technical disputes are being argued and re-argued in a very costly and time
consuming exercise. This does not benefit
either party. As the applicant is
represented by self-actor, so to speak, I will allow that the matter be struck
off the roll. A new date will be set
giving all the parties sufficient time to prepare.
Accordingly, the matter be and is
hereby struck off the roll, with costs being costs in the cause.
Joel Pincus, Konson & Wolhuter, 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th
and 8th defendants' legal practitioners
Calderwood, Bryce Hendrie & Partners, 2nd defendant's legal practitioners
Sansole & Senda, 4th
defendant's legal practitioners
