* Desere Barnard, Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys, Rachel Hannies, Graeme Johnstone, Hilary Johnstone
* 24 May: LJ Re: D Barnard re: H 51/19: LJohnson v GHJohnstone & Others.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub / EoP ADR: LJ v GH Johnstone / 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.
From: Lara Johnson <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 19:57:51 +0200
To: “Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys: Desere Barnard: Rachel Hannies” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Graeme Johnstone <email@example.com>, Hilary Johnstone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: LJ Re: D Barnard re: H 51/19: LJohnson v GHJohnstone & Others
TO: Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys: Desere Barnard: Rachel Hannies (email@example.com)
CC: Graeme Johnstone (firstname.lastname@example.org); Hilary Johnstone (email@example.com)
LJ Re: D Barnard re: H 51/19: LJohnson v GHJohnstone & Others.
I received your letter on behalf of your clients, Graeme and Hilary Johnstone, dated 22 May 2019, sent via email on 24 May 2019 [24 May: Desere Barnard: Graeme & Hillary Johnstone: Re: LJ v GHJ & Others], wherein you state:
We draw your attention to the fact that your pleadings do not disclose a cause of action, are vague and embarrassing, and do not comply with any of the rules of court. Should you wish to continue with this matter this application should be withdrawn and a proper application complying with South African law be issued. Until such time we will not be responding to anything.
I don’t know what your or your clients definition of a ‘cause of action’ is, but if you clarify how and why you consider my pleadings to be lacking in disclosing a cause of action against your clients; I shall be happy to amend my pleadings.
If you clarify what exactly in my pleadings is too vague, if I have access to information to provide greater detail to any statement you or your clients consider to be vague, I shall be happy to provide you with such greater detail information in an amended affidavit, or refiled application.
My pleadings and affidavits are focused on what I consider the objective and subjective truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not whether such truth is embarrassing to me or anyone else. If or when I am provided with information or evidence to clarify that any of my objective and/or subjective truth interpretations of objective and/or subjective reality are in error, I am and have been happy to amend such errors and provide the individual with a written apology.
I don’t know what your or your clients definition is for ‘embarrassing’. I am not sure what embarrassing has to do with pleadings to a court of law. Generally speaking in psychological therapy terms if or when an individual considers an issue to be ‘embarrassing’ it often has to do with them having a public representation, that is different to their private representation. They are embarrassed when their private representation is exposed as their true self, and their public representation is exposed as fake public relations image management.
If you clarify how my application is ‘improper’ according to your or your clients interpretation of ‘complying with South African law’ then I can consider your recommendations and amend it, if necessary.
If your clients do not intend to file answering affidavits, and you do not intend to clarify what you consider to be improper or vague, then I shall place the matter on the roll, for the Judge to decide.
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 quetion 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.
I shall hereby grant your clients a postponement to file their answering affidavits by 31 May 2019.
A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at EoP Legal Submissions: LJ v GH Johnstone & 5 Others [lj-v-ghj.tygae.org.za]
Pro Se, EoP Applicant [EoP Oath PDF]