Matyeka v Kaaber
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Hill J |
| Judgment Date | 16 September 1960 |
| Court | Transvaal Provincial Division |
| Citation | 1960 (4) SA 900 (T) |
Hill, J.:
On the 22nd June, 1959, the plaintiff caused summons to
Hill J
be issued against the defendant for payment of the sum of £5,000 being damages for wrongfully and maliciously laying a false charge of theft against the plaintiff thereby causing the plaintiff's arrest and imprisonment.
A The defendant duly entered appearance to defend the action and the plaintiff thereafter filed his declaration. Further particulars called for by the defendant were furnished by the plaintiff after the defendant had obtained an order of Court compelling him to do so.
B On the 26th October, 1959, the defendant filed a plea denying that he instigated any criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, and in a counterclaim which accompanied the plea the defendant claimed payment of the sum of £200 being the balance due to the defendant for work done and material supplied to the plaintiff.
It is alleged in the counterclaim that on the 20th October, 1957, the defendant agreed to build a bus body for the plaintiff on a lorry C chassis supplied by the plaintiff for the sum of £500. During November, 1957, the defendant further agreed to supply and fit a roof carrier to the vehicle for the sum of £35. The defendant duly completed the work and delivered the bus with roof carrier to the plaintiff on the 5th D December, 1957. Up to that date the plaintiff had paid a total amount of £250 leaving a balance of £285.
On the 5th December, 1957, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement in terms whereof the plaintiff undertook to pay the sum of £285 together with finance charges fixed at £34 in monthly instalments of £21 10s. commencing on the 10th January, 1958. The plaintiff paid E three instalments and remained in default in respect of a balance of £254. During March, 1959, the defendant instituted an action against the plaintiff in the magistrate's court of Carolina for payment of his claim, having abandoned the amount in excess of £200 so as to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of the magistrate's court.
F On the application of the plaintiff the defendant's action was stayed under sec. 47 of Act 32 of 1944 in order to enable the plaintiff to bring his action in this Court. The cause of action, on the present counterclaim, is the same as that of the claim in the magistrate's court.
The plaintiff failed to file his plea to the counterclaim within eight days from the date of service of the counterclaim and was, therefore, G automatically barred from answering the counterclaim in terms of Rule 30 of the Rules of Court. After the lapse of about six months the defendant's attorneys informed the plaintiff's attorney, by letter dated the 27th April, 1960, that the plaintiff was in default with his plea in reconvention, and that no steps had been taken to enrol the action for hearing. The following is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strategic Considerations in Global Litigation: Comparing Judicial Case Management Approaches in South Africa with the United States
...46 for t he limit s of this p ower. Krygk or Pensioenfonds v S mith 1993 3 SA 459 (A); Neal v Neal 1959 1 SA 828 (N); Matye ka v Kaaber 1960 4 SA 900 (T); Watson v K rieks 1963 3 SA 546 (O); A v R Kinder- en Kin dersorgveren iging 1996 1 SA 649 (T); Beinash v Wi xley 1997 2 All SA 241 (A).8......
-
Pangbourne Properties Ltd v Pulse Moving CC and Another
...substantial injustice to one of the parties. (Moluele and Others v Deschatelets NO 1950 (2) SA 670 (T) at 676; also Matyeka v Kaaber 1960 (4) SA 900 (T).) It is inconceivable that a court would give effect to the Rule where the implication of such a Rule would clearly cause undue hardship t......
-
MB Service Station v Sell-Mar Installations (Pty) Ltd
...will be adjudicated together (Smith NO v Brummer F NO and Another; Smith NO v Brummer 1954 (3) SA 352 (O); Matyeka v Kaaber 1960 (4) SA 900 (T)) and the Court may in its discretion make a single order as to both claim and counterclaim. But the fact remains that the two actions are separate ......
-
Hart and Another v Nelson
...421 (O): referred to Lambert v Mainland Market Deliveries Ltd [1977] 2 All ER 826 (CA): dictum at 833e - h applied C Matyeka v Kaaber 1960 (4) SA 900 (T): Molete v Union National South British Insurance Co Ltd 1982 (4) SA 178 (W): referred to Moluele and Others v Deschatelets NO 1950 (2) SA......
-
Pangbourne Properties Ltd v Pulse Moving CC and Another
...substantial injustice to one of the parties. (Moluele and Others v Deschatelets NO 1950 (2) SA 670 (T) at 676; also Matyeka v Kaaber 1960 (4) SA 900 (T).) It is inconceivable that a court would give effect to the Rule where the implication of such a Rule would clearly cause undue hardship t......
-
MB Service Station v Sell-Mar Installations (Pty) Ltd
...will be adjudicated together (Smith NO v Brummer F NO and Another; Smith NO v Brummer 1954 (3) SA 352 (O); Matyeka v Kaaber 1960 (4) SA 900 (T)) and the Court may in its discretion make a single order as to both claim and counterclaim. But the fact remains that the two actions are separate ......
-
Hart and Another v Nelson
...421 (O): referred to Lambert v Mainland Market Deliveries Ltd [1977] 2 All ER 826 (CA): dictum at 833e - h applied C Matyeka v Kaaber 1960 (4) SA 900 (T): Molete v Union National South British Insurance Co Ltd 1982 (4) SA 178 (W): referred to Moluele and Others v Deschatelets NO 1950 (2) SA......
-
Citibank NA, South Africa Branch v Paul NO and Another
...eis verleen is maar eksekusie opgeskort is. Wat betref onbetwiste teeneise waar die eis in geskil is, het Hill R in Matyeka v Kaaber 1960 (4) SA 900 (T) op 904 vonnis E verleen sonder toepassing van die pari passu-reël en bevind dat daar geen rede is om verstekvonnisse op teeneise te beperk......
-
Strategic Considerations in Global Litigation: Comparing Judicial Case Management Approaches in South Africa with the United States
...46 for t he limit s of this p ower. Krygk or Pensioenfonds v S mith 1993 3 SA 459 (A); Neal v Neal 1959 1 SA 828 (N); Matye ka v Kaaber 1960 4 SA 900 (T); Watson v K rieks 1963 3 SA 546 (O); A v R Kinder- en Kin dersorgveren iging 1996 1 SA 649 (T); Beinash v Wi xley 1997 2 All SA 241 (A).8......