GROUP WORK QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1
(a)You passed your attorneys’ admission examination and your contract as candidate attorney expires shortly. You want to be admitted as an attorney. Bear these facts in mind, and answer the following questions.
(i)Explain which type of application you may use. (2)
(ii)Name the documents that comprise the type of application identified in (i) above. (2)
(iii)Explain why the type of application referred to in (i) above is not an interlocutory application. (2)
(iv)If the application now relates to leave to serve a document overseas by way of edictal citation, name four aspects that the content of such application must cover as prescribed by Uniform Rule 5(2). (4)
[10]
(b)X issues a simple summons against Y for ejectment. Answer the following questions.
(i)Explain why X will not be able to use the provisional sentence summons to institute the action. (2)
(ii)Name the procedure that X may use if Y enters an appearance to defend timeously, but X is convinced that Y does not have good grounds to do so. (1)
(iii)Y enters an appearance to defend, and X fails to deliver his declaration timeously. Discuss the procedure that Y may follow in these circumstances. (3)
(iv)If X delivers his declaration, name the pleadings in convention that thereafter could, in the usual way, be exchanged between the parties in the correct order. (2)
(v)Name two procedures that may be used after close of pleadings to prevent the parties from being caught unprepared at the trial. (2)
[10]
[20]
QUESTION 2
(a)In each of the instances set out below, indicate briefly in what way the pleading or the procedure followed is defective, and whether there is any procedure the defendant may use to raise an objection against it.
(i)In his particulars of claim the plaintiff alleges that the parties concluded an agreement on 1 February 2070, instead of on 1 February 2007. (2)
(ii)The plaintiff institutes an action for divorce against the defendant by way of a simple summons. (2)
(iii)The plaintiff claims payment of a specific amount from the defendant in terms of an agreement on which the defendant would be liable for such payment if a certain Z were to fail to pay this amount. In the particulars of claim the plaintiff does not allege that Z has failed to pay the amount. (2)
(iv)The plaintiff issues summons against the defendant in the Cape High Court in the amount of R700 000 for damages resulting from a motorcar collision. The court grants judgment in the amount of R300 000. The defendant subsequently moves to Pretoria and issued by the plaintiff in the Pretoria High Court for the balance of the claim, namely R400 000. (2)
(v)Because it appears that B wishes to flee the country so as not to abide the judgment of the court, X applies for the arrest of B’s person ad fundandam iurisdictionem. (2)
[10]
ANSWERS TO GROUP WORK QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1
(a)
(i) An Ex parte application: this type of application is used when the interests and rights of no-one other than the applicant will be affected by the application (therefore applicant is not obliged to give notice of the application to anyone else). On the given facts the applicant is the only person who is interested or affected by the relief sought. See SGU 2.2.1.
(ii) Notice of motion supported by a supporting affidavit. See Rule 6 (1) (a).
(iii) An interlocutory application is used when a party approaches the court for relief in respect of matters related to proceedings that have already been instituted. On the given facts the application relates to proceedings that have not yet been instituted. Therefore, this type of application is not an interlocutory application. See SGU 2.2.3.
(iv) It must set out concisely the nature and extent of the claim, the grounds upon which the claim is based and upon which the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and also the manner of service which the court is asked to authorise. If such manner be other than personal service, the applicant shall further set forth the last known whereabouts of the person to be served and the enquiries made to ascertain his present whereabouts. See Rule 5 (2).
(b)
(i) Provisional sentence summons can be used only if the cause of action is based on a liquid document. On the given facts summons was issued for ejectment. A claim for ejectment is a claim for liquidated demand. Therefore provisional sentence summons cannot be used if the plaintiff’s claim is for a debt or liquidated demand. See SGU 6.2.2 and 7.2.
(ii) Summary judgment. See SGU 12.4.
(iii) Where a party fails to deliver a pleading other than a replication or one of the ensuing pleadings on time, a notice of bar must first be served on that party. A declaration is such a pleading, and therefore Y must first deliver a notice of bar to X, requesting delivery within a specified time limit. Should X thereafter fail to deliver the declaration, he or she will be in default and ipso facto be barred from doing so. Y may then request for absolution of the instance owing to the fact that the plaintiff has not proved his or her claim, or judgment. See SGU 12.3.2.3.
(iv) Plea on the merits and replication. See SGU 9.3 and 9.4.
(v) Request for further particulars for purposes of trial and discovery of documents and tape recordings. See SGU 13.3.1 and 13.3.3, as well as the feedback on the first assignment for other possible procedures.
QUESTION 2
(a)
(i) There is a factual error in the plaintiff’s particulars of claim. Since a party may amend only his or her own pleadings, it is only the plaintiff that may apply to amend his or her declaration, not the defendant in this case. See SGU10.4. [Note: Well done to the Cape Town discussion group for immediately spotting this point! Prof E Hurter].
(ii) An incorrect summons was used. A combined summons is used when the plaintiff’s claim is unliquidated. A claim for divorce is unliquidated, and the plaintiff did not comply with the formal requirements of Rule 17(2). Non-compliance with the provisions of a specific Rule will be deemed to be an irregular step. Defendant may thus apply to set aside the summons as an irregular proceeding. See Rule 19(2) and SGU10.7.
(iii) The pleading as drafted discloses no cause of action. A party may except to the pleading if it discloses no cause of action or defence. On the given facts the plaintiff does not allege that Z failed to pay the amount (thus making the defendant liable); therefore the defendant may except to the plaintiff’s particulars of claim. See SGU 10.5.
(iv) Special plea of res iudicata. There has been final judgment on the same matter and the matter cannot be raised again in the same or a different court. See SGU 10.6.2.2.
(v) In the first instance the procedure is incorrect: arrest ad fundandam iurisdictionem was in the past used to vest a court with jurisdiction, and arrest tanquam suspectus de fuga should have been used. Secondly, this procedure has been ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Malachi v Cape Dance Academy International (Pty) Ltd 2010 6 SA 1 (CC) in relation to section 30 (3) of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1944. Although this decision does not affect Uniform Rule 9 directly, one can expect such a ruling in respect of the High Court too if the matter is raised (see Bid case where “arrest” was ruled unconstitutional since it impacts a person’s freedom). See Tutorial Letter 103/3/2012.
GROEPWERKVRAE
VRAAG 1
(a)U het u prokureurstoelatingeksamen geslaag, en u kontrak as kandidaatprokureur verstryk eersdaags. U wil graag as prokureur toegelaat word. Beantwoord die volgende vrae aan die hand van hierdie feite.
(i)Verduidelik watter tipe aansoek u mag gebruik. (2)
(ii)Noem die dokumente waaruit die aansoek na verwys in (i) hier-bo, bestaan. (2)
(iii)Verduidelik waarom die tipe aansoek na verwys in (i) hierbo nie ‘n interlokutoriese aansoek is nie. (2)
(iv)Gestel die aansoek handel nou met verlof om ‘n dokument in die buiteland by wyse van ediktale sitasie te beteken. Noem vier aspekte waarmee die inhoud van die aansoek moet handel, soos voorgeskryf deur Eenvormige Hofreël (2). (4)
[10]
(b)X reik ‘n eenvoudige dagvaarding uit teen Y vir uitsetting. Beantwoord die volgende vrae.
(i)Verduidelik waarom X nie gebruik sou kon maak van die voorlopige vonnisdag-vaarding om die aksie mee in te stel nie. (2)
(ii)Noem die prosedure wat X kan gebruik indien Y betyds verskyning aanteken maar X oortuig is daarvan dat Y geen goeie gronde het om dit te doen nie. (1)
(iii)Gestel Y teken verskyning aan, en X versuim om betyds sy deklarasie af te lewer. Bespreek die prosedure wat Y in so ‘n geval kan volg. (3)
(iv)Indien X wel die deklarasie betyds aflewer, noem die pleitstukke wat normaalweg hierna in konvensie tussen die partye gewissel sal word in die korrekte volgororde. (2)
(v)Noem twee prosedures wat gebruik kan word na sluiting van pleitstukke om te verhoed dat partye onkant betrap word by die verhoor. (2)
[10]
[20]
VRAAG 2
(a)Dui in elkeen van die volgende gevalle kortliks aan in welke opsig die betrokke pleitstuk of prosedure gebrekkig is en of die verweerder deur middel van enige prosedure daarteen beswaar kan maak.
(i)Die eiser beweer in sy besonderhede van vordering dat die partye ‘n kontrak gesluit het op 1 Februarie 2070 in plaas van 1 Februarie 2007. (2)
(ii)Die eiser stel ‘n egskeidingsgeding in teen die verweerder by wyse van ‘n eenvoudige dagvaarding. (2)
(iii)Die eiser vorder betaling van ‘n bepaalde bedrag van die verweerder ingevolge ‘n ooreenkoms waarvolgens die verweerder aanspreeklik sou wees vir sodanige betaling indien ene Z sou versuim om hierdie bedrag te betaal. Die eiser beweer nie in die besonderhede van vordering dat Z aldus versuim het nie. (2)
(iv)Die eiser reik ‘n dagvarding uit teen die verweerder vir skadevergoeding wat voorvloei uit ‘n motorbotsing ten bedrae van R700 000 in die Kaapse Hoë Hof. Die hof staan vonnis toe ten bedrae van R300 000. Die verweerder verhuis na Pretoria en die eiser dagvaar die verweerder in die Pretoriase Hoë Hof vir die balans van die eis, naamlik R400 000. (2)
(v)Omdat dit blyk dat B die land gaan verlaat ten einde die vonnis van die hof te ontduik, doen X aansoek om die arres van B se persoon ad fundandam iurisdictionem. (2)
TERUGVOER: GROEPWERKVRAE: CIP3701
VRAAG 1
(a)
(i)‘nEx parte-aansoek: hierdie tipe aansoek word gebruik wanneer die belange en regte van slegs die applikant deur die aansoek geraak word (om hierdie rede is kennis van die aansoek aan ander onnodig). Volgens die feitestel is die applikant die enigste persoon wat deur die regshulp wat gevra word geraak word (of ‘n belang daarby het). Sien S/E 2.2.1.
(iii)‘n Kennisgewing van Mosie met ‘n ondersteunende beëdigde verklaring. Sien Reël 6(1)(a).
(iv)‘n Interlokutoriese aansoek word gebruik wanneer ‘n party die hof nader om regshulp tydens verrigtinge wat reedsingestel is. Volgens die feitestel is verrigtinge duidelik nog nie ingestel nie en stel hierdie aansoek verrigtinge in. Om hierdie rede is die aansoek nie interlokutories nie. S/E 2.2.3.
(v)Dit bevat ‘n saaklike uiteensetting van die aard en omvang van die eis; die gronde waarop dit berus en waarop die hof jurisdiksie het om die eis te bereg; en die wyse van betekening wat die hof gevra word om te magtig. As dit nie persoonlike betekening is nie, ook die laas bekende verblyfplek van die betrokke persoon. Sien Reël 5(2).
(b)
(i)‘n Voorlopige vonnisdagvaarding kan net gebruik word indien die eis op ‘n likwiede dokument (bv tjek) gebaseer is. Volgens die feitestel is uitsetting ter sprake. ‘n Eis om uitsetting is in werklikheid ‘n gelikwideerde eis (is seker, vasstaande, ens) en daar is nie sprake van ‘n likwiede dokument nie. ‘n Voorlopige vonnisdagvaarding kan dus nie gebruik word nie. Sien S/E 6.2.2 en 7.2.
(ii)‘n Aansoek om summiere vonnis. Sien S/E 12.4.
(iii)Indien ‘n party versuim om ‘n pleitstuk, anders as ‘n replikasie of daaropvolgende pleitstuk betyds af te lewer, moet ‘n kennisgewing van belet eers op so ‘n party beteken word. ‘n Deklarasie is een sodanige pleitstuk, en dus moet Y eers ‘n kennisgewing van belet aflewer waarin X versoek word om die deklarasie binne ‘n bepaalde tyd af te lewer. Sou X daarna steeds versuim, is X in verstek en ipso facto (outomaties)onderbelet (dws, X mag dit nie meer aflewer nie). Y mag nou aansoek doen om absolusie van die instansie (want die eiser het nie sy of haar eis bewys nie), of om vonnis. Sien S/E 12.3.2.3.
(iv)Die verweerskrif op die meriete en die replikasie. Sien S/E 9.3 en 9.4.
(v)‘n Versoek om nadere besonderhede vir doeleindes van verhoor (let op die volledige bewoording!) en blootlegging. Sien S/E 13.3.1 en 13.3.3, asook die terugvoer op die eerste werkopdrag vir ‘n lys van ander moontlike prosedures.
VRAAG 2
(a)
(i)Daar is duidelik ‘n feitelike fout in die eiser se besonderhede van vordering. angesien ‘n party slegs sy of haar eie pleitstuk mag wysig, kan die verweerder dit nie doen nie, en kan slegs die eiser die wysiging laat aanbring. Sien S/E 10.4. [Nota: Aan die besprekingsgroep in Kaapstad – knap gedaan: julle was wakker en het hierdie punt onmiddellik raak gelees! Prof E Hurter]
(ii)‘n Foutiewe dagvaarding is gebruik. ‘n Gekombineerde dagvaarding word gebruik indien die eis ongelikwideerd is. ‘n Eis om egskeiding is ongelikwideerd, en die eiser het dus nie voldoen aan die vereistes gestel in Reël 17(2) nie. Nie-nakoming met reëlvoorskrifte stel ‘n onreëlmatige verrigting daar, en die verweerder kan gevolglik aansoek doen om tersydestelling van die onreëlmatige verrigting. Sien Reël 19(2) en S/E 10.7.
(iii)‘n Party mag ‘n eksepsie opwerp indien ‘n pleitstuk geen eisoorsaak of verweer openbaar nie. Die pleitstuk (die besonderhede van eis) openbaar geen eisoorsaak nie: volgens die feitestel beweer die eiser nie dat Z versuim het om die betrokke bedrag te betaal nie (welke versuim die verweerder aanspreeklik sou maak). Die verweerder kan gevolglik ‘n eksepsie opwerp op grond daarvan dat geen eisoorsaak geopenbaar word nie. Sien S/E 10.5.
(iv)‘n Spesiale pleit van res iudicata. Daar was reeds ‘n finale uitspraak in die saak, en dus kan dieselfde saak nie weer geopper word in dieselfde of ‘n ander hof nie. Sien S/E 10.6.2.2.
(v)Eerstens is die prosedure self verkeerd: vroeër is arres ad fundandam iurisdictionem gebruik om ‘n hof met jurisdiksie te beklee, en dus moes arres tanquam suspectus de fuga gebruik gewees het. Tweedens is laasgenoemde prosedure soos vervat in artikel 30(3) van die Wet op Landdroshowe, 1944 ongrondwetlik verklaar deur die Konstitusionele Hof in Malachi v Cape Dance Academy international (Pty) Ltd 2010 6 SA 1 (KH). Hoewel hierdie beslissing dus nie Eenvormige Hofreël 9 regstreeks raak nie, kan ‘n mens verwag dat so ‘n beslissing ook in die Hoë Hof sal volg indien dit geopper word (veral as onthou word dat arres – in jurisdiksieverband -- ongrondwetlik verklaar is in die Bid-saak omdat dit inbreuk maak op ‘n persoon se vryheid). Sien Studiebrief 103/3/2012.