Spie Batignolles Société Anonyme v Van Niekerk; In re van Niekerk v SA Yster en Staal Industriële Korporasie Bpk en Andere

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Jacobs JP
• Judgment Date: 14 December 1979
• Citation: 1980 (2) SA 441 (NC)
• Hearing Date: 20 August 1979
• Court: Northern Cape Division

Jacobs JP:

On 31 July 1979 the above-named plaintiff (now respondent) issued summons against the four defendants in which he claimed an amount of R113 575 as damages arising from a veld fire on the farm Rugseer in the E Kenhardt district on 3 August 1976. He alleged that the fire was started by employees of all or one or other of the defendants during the building of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. In plaintiff's particulars of claim second defendant is described as:

"'n vennootskap bekend as Spie Batignolles en Des Quenne et Giral, van 10de vloer, Totalsentrum, h/v Jorrissen-en Berthastraat, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, Transvaal, waar dit as kontrakteurs sake doen"

and third defendant is described as:

"'n maatskappy met beperkte aanspreeklikheid ingevolge die Wette van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika behoorlik ingelyf, met sy geregistreerde hoofkantoor geleë to 10de vloer, Totalsentrum, h/v Jorrissen- en Berthastraat, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, Transvaal, waar dit as kontrakteurs sake doen."

The summons was served by the Deputy Sheriff of Johannesburg. In the case of second defendant the return of service reads as follows:

"Op die 1ste dag van Augustus 1979, en te 10de vloer, Total Sentrum, h/v H Jorrissen and Berthastrate, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, die adres aan my verskaf vir betekening, het ek die gekombineerde dagvaarding en besonderhede van eiser se vordering hierby aangeheg en aanhangsel 'A', hierin beteken vir die tweede verweerder firma, op mev Krause, bestuurder se sekretaresse, synde 'n persoon in beheer van die perseel ten tye van aflewering en synde 'n persoon nie jonger as 16 jaar, en die aard, doel en strekking daarvan verduidelik en terselfdertyd 'n afskrif daarvan oorhandig."

In the case of third defendant the return of service reads as follows:

"Op die 1ste dag van Augustus 1979, en te 10de vloer, Total Sentrum, h/v Jorrissen and Berthastrate, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, die adres aan my verskaf as die geregistreerde kantoor van die derde verweerder maatskappy, het ek

Jacobs JP

die gekombineerde dagvaarding en besonderhede van eiser se vordering hierby aangeheg en aanhangsel 'A', hierin beteken vir die derde verweerder maatskappy, op mev E Krause, bestuurder se sekretaresse, van die derde verweerder maatskappy, by die bogenoemde adres, en die aard, doel en strekking daarvan verduidelik en terselfdertyd 'n afskrif daarvan A oorhandig. By die adres van betekening is daar 'n aanwysingsbordjie wat aandui dat die gegewe adres die geregistreerde kantoor van die derde verweerder maatskappy is."

I may just say that from the papers before me it is not clear what the "aanhangsel A" referred to in both returns of service was.

B On 20 August 1979 a notice of motion was filed by the applicant herein asking for an order:

'1.1

Setting aside the return of service furnished by the Deputy Sheriff in respect of the alleged service of the summons on second defendant as an irregular or improper step in terms of the provisions of Rule C 30 of the Rules of the above honourable Court.

1.2

Setting aside the return of service furnished by the Deputy Sheriff in respect of the alleged service of the summons on the third defendant as an irregular or improper step in terms of the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rules of the honourable Court.'

D The grounds upon which applicant alleges that the service of the summons was irregular were stated as follows:

'1.

There is not now and was not at the time of the alleged service of the summons a partnership known as Spie Batignolles, Des Quenne et Giral and Edith Mary Claude Krause (born Vray) had no right or authority to accept service of the summons or any other document for or on behalf of a partnership known as Spie Batignolles, Des Quenne et Giral.

2.

Up to December 1976 two companies, namely Spie Batignolles Société Anonyme (the present applicant) and Desquenne et Giral Société Anonyme, carried on a joint venture under the name Joint Venture Spie-Batignolles Desquenne and Desquenne et Giral. During December 1976 the joint venture was terminated by agreement between the two aforementioned companies, and thereafter carried on no business and F had no place of business. The said Edith Mary Claude Krause (born Vray), upon whom service of the summons was allegedly effected by the Deputy Sheriff was at no time a 'proprietor or the chairman or secretary of the committee or other managing body' of the joint venture and could therefore not accept service of the summons on behalf of the joint venture even if it could be stated that the joint venture was in fact a partnership, but with no place of business, and even if it still existed at the time of service of the summons (which is not the case).

3.

Even if it could be stated that the applicant is an ex-partner of the G 'partnership' cited in the summons as second defendant, the applicant has not been cited as a defendant in the summons and as alleged service of the summons does not constitute proper or regular service on either the former 'partnership' or on the present applicant.

4.

There has never existed a company which has been incorporated in H South Africa under the description of Spie Batignolles South Africa Division (Edms) Bpk, with the result that the third defendant does not exist.'

Before the hearing an amendment, which was not objected to by respondent, was granted, adding an alternative prayer after 1.1 above, for the summons against second and third defendants to be set aside and a further alternative prayer asking for the services of the summons on second and third defendants to be set aside.

Supporting the notice of motion was an...