Description
Proof of service – rubberstamp impression and a signature – sufficient proof of service – rule 22(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules – partial service of documents – service of a certificate of urgency only without a notice of motion – a diligent litigant – averments in the supporting affidavit – uncontroverted – notice of appeal – failure to institute the appeal within the prescribed time without justification – The overriding objective will not help a party to circumvent mandatory rules of the Court – bless the respondent’s inaction – render superfluous the rules of the Court – the respondent thrashed so brazenly.
- Proof of service – rubberstamp impression and a signature of the recipient were found to be sufficient proof of service in terms of rule 22(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules (p. 5).
- Allegations of partial service of documents – that the respondent was served with a certificate of urgency only without a notice of motion – it was held that as a diligent litigant, the respondent should have taken necessary steps to access the notice of motion well in advance (p. 5).
- The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply after being served with a notice of motion – it was held that the averments in the supporting affidavit are uncontroverted (p. 7).
- A notice of appeal filed by the respondent was struck out since the respondent failed to institute the appeal within the prescribed time without justification (p. 9).
- The overriding objective will not help a party to circumvent mandatory rules of the Court (p. 9).
- The Court of Appeal refused to apply the principle of overriding objective in favour of the respondent since doing so would bless the respondent’s inaction and render superfluous the rules of the Court that the respondent thrashed so brazenly (p. 9).
