Rapid IT Solutions v National Health Laboratory Services and Others

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: C Todd AJ
• Judgment Date: 23 August 2022
• Docket Number: 25671/2020
• Hearing Date: 23 August 2022
• Court: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
• Citation: 2022 JDR 2522 (GP)

Todd AJ:

1.

This matter came before me as an interlocutory matter on the opposed motion roll on 16 August 2022.

2022 JDR 2522 p2

Todd AJ

2.

The main proceedings were instituted by way of action. It is apparent from the file that the matter has been the subject of a number of different interlocutory proceedings. In part these have been attributable to the fact that the Plaintiff in the action is not legally represented, and the matter is being conducted by Mr Jethro Diphare, stated to be a director of the Plaintiff.

3.

The status of the action proceedings is that, following an exception brought by the Defendants the Plaintiff amended its particulars of claim and the Defendants have filed specials pleas and a plea dated 20 April 2022. Pleadings have now closed.

4.

According to Ms Lefaladi, who appeared for the Defendants, all that is left to be done for the matter to be trial ready is for the parties to comply with their respective discovery obligations and to hold a pre-trial conference, and the matter should then be able to be enrolled for trial.

5.

The application that came before me on 16 August 2022 was an application for an interdict and certain related consequential relief that Mr Diphare had first conceived more than a year ago, in June 2021. At that time, according to Mr Diphare, he had hoped to secure interlocutory relief, pending the action, that would prevent the underlying contract which has given rise to the dispute from lapsing.

6.

In the interim, between the time when the interlocutory papers were delivered and the matter was argued before me, the contract had in fact lapsed. Mr Diphare accepted that he could no longer seek an order preventing that from happening, and he indicated that he no longer sought the interdictory and related relief that was set out in the notice of motion in the interlocutory application. Instead, in submissions before me he indicated that he sought instead, on the same papers, an order for the payment of part of the amount of damages that he was claiming by way of action.

7.

The application was opposed by the Defendants. Ms Lefaladi submitted that the application was simply an abuse of process, and that this was but one of a number of similar instances of irregular conduct by the Plaintiff in the course of the proceedings. I do not have before me the details of the other interlocutory matters to which Ms Lefaladi was referring, but Ms Lefaladi submitted that the...