24 May: LJ Re: H 51/19: LJ v GHJ: FT Moe Answering Affid Deadline: 31 May 2019

* Arno Crous, Millers Inc, Frode Moe, Talitha Moe
* 24 May: LJ Re: H 51/19: LJ v GHJ:  FT Moe Answering Affid Deadline: 31 May 2019.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub / EoP ADR: LJ v GH Johnstone, LJ v FT Moe  / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMZA | EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP  Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity, EoP v WiP Psych / EoP v WiP Neg.

Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:42:59 +0200
From: Lara Johnson <eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za>
To: “Millers Inc: Arno Crous” <arno@millers.co.za>
Cc: Frode Moe <fro.moe@online.no>, Talitha Moe <lee.moe@telkomsa.net>
Subject: LJ Re: H 51/19: LJ v GHJ:  FT Moe Answering Affid Deadline: 31 May 2019
Message-ID: <bfeb017efc3147bffebea14542b0d8fc@tygae.org.za>
X-Sender: eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za

TO: Millers Inc: Arno Crous (arno@millers.co.za)
CC: Frode Moe (fro.moe@online.no); Talitha Moe (lee.moe@telkomsa.net)

Arno Crous:

LJ Re: H 51/19: LJ v GHJ:  FT Moe Answering Affid Deadline: 31 May 2019.

In correspondence to you and your clients on 10 May 2019; I recommended Friday 24 May 2019 as a deadline date for the filing of Answering Affidavits.

I have received no answering affidavits from you or your clients by today 24 May 2019.

I received correspondence from Desere Barnard today [24 May: Desere Barnard: Graeme & Hillary Johnstone: Re: LJ v GHJ & Others] to which I responded [24 May: LJ Re: D Barnard re: H 51/19: LJohnson v GHJohnstone & Others], wherein I agreed to a postponement of answering affidavits deadline by 31 May 2019.

If your clients intend to request delays beyond 31 May 2019, please request them to place such request in writing in affidavit form, including the reasons for their requested delays.

Postponement of Answering Affidavits Deadline: 31 May 2019:

Please confirm that your clients are aware of Vuyo Mkwibiso’s conclusions in Derebus: Which road to choose? Action or Application:

The Labour Appeal Court found that a dispute of fact will be held to exist on the basis of what is alleged in the answering affidavit in comparison to the founding affidavit. The court further held that allegations that were not denied would be regarded as having been admitted. …… From the cases – Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T); Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA); Naidoo and Another v Sunker and Another (SCA) (unreported case no 126/11, 29-11-2011); SA Football Association v Mangope (2013) 34 ILJ 311 (LAC) – it is clear that failing to deal with the merits of an applicant’s claim in application proceedings based on some technical ground may have drastic consequences as a respondent may suffer an adverse order being granted without having fully exercised his right to be heard. Legal practitioners are urged to familiarise themselves with the applicable principles regarding disputes of fact before advising their clients on how to oppose legal proceedings brought as applications supported by affidavits. In summary, only real, genuine or bona fide disputes of fact will be entertained by the courts before a decision is made to dismiss an application or refer it to trial or for oral evidence on a limited issue. Bare denials are not sufficient to establish disputes of fact, unless the facts in question are peculiarly in the knowledge of the applicant and the respondent has no knowledge of those facts. In order for a litigant to argue that disputes of fact were reasonably foreseeable, those disputes must be set out in the answering affidavit, which must set out the basis on which it is alleged that the disputes were reasonably foreseeable. The existence of letters and e-mails or other proceedings based on similar facts between the same parties, in which the alleged disputes of fact were raised, will be insufficient.

A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at EoP Legal Submissions: LJ v GH Johnstone & 5 Others [lj-v-ghj.tygae.org.za]


Lara Johnson,
Pro Se, EoP Applicant [EoP Oath PDF]