BHUNU
J: The respondent is the applicant's tenant. The parties are engaged in
litigation under case Number HC 5940/2010 wherein the applicant has instituted
eviction proceedings against the respondent.
On
26 November 2010 the respondent filed a Court application seeking to amend its
plea filed on 4 November 2010 where upon the applicant filed its notice of
opposition on 9 December 2010. A period of more than one month has since
expired without the respondent prosecuting its application.
The
respondent ought to have filed its answering affidavit or set the matter down
for hearing within a period of one month in terms of r 236 (3). Failure to do
so entitled the applicant to apply for the dismissal of the application for
want of prosecution. To date the respondent has neither filed an answering
affidavit nor set down the matter for hearing in terms of the rules.
The
applicant has now filed a chamber application seeking the dismissal of the
applicant's application to amend its plea. At the hearing in my chambers it
emerged that the respondent had no reasonable excuse for its failure to comply
with the rules other than to delay proceedings as it is currently occupying the
applicant's premises without paying any rentals. That being the case, this
application can only succeed. The respondent's conduct in this regard is
reprehensible as it amounts to an abuse of process. The Court can only express
its displeasure by an award of adverse costs.
It
is accordingly ordered that the court application filed by the respondent in
Case No. HC 8608/10 be and is hereby dismissed with costs at the legal
practitioner client scale.
Mabulala and Motsi, applicant's legal practitioners
Machingambi Legal
Practitioners, respondent's legal practitioners
