6.1 on page 3 of exhibit C where the respondents stated that it is specifically denied “ dat daar op enige relevante tydperk valse en/of bedrieglike en/of vervalste dokumente deur enige van die respondente saamgestel is of laat saamstel” and further “te alle relevante tye is alle dokumentasie ter sprake wat tot ‘n besoldigingsbeslagleggingsbevel gelei het, reëlmatig en ooreenkomstig die reëls van die hof by die klerk van die siviele hof se kantore te Johannesburg ingehandig vir die nodige prosessering.” Contrary to this statement there is the letter from Kochnel, Bantjes dated 31 March 2006 to Maravedi which contains inter alia the following: “We drew Mr JM Tabane’s file and visited the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on Friday 17 March 2006, where we found the following: • T was confirmed that case number 95462/2005 contained the matter of Standard Bank of South Africa vs Sports Retail Concepts cc and Mr HLJ Williams. • Other case numbers from our portfolio proved also to contain different cases on the court file to what our documentation indicated. • The Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court stamps used on our documents, are acknowledged by court staff to be genuine, but they say that anyone from that section can obtain access to these stamps. • The two signatures that appear on all our documents processed through the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court over the past two years were made by the same person(s) according to a handwriting expert. Ms Abrahams of the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court however claims that these signatures are fraudulent, but our investigations at this stage indicate otherwise. • According to staff of the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court they only write case numbers on EAOs by hand, except disciplinary inquiry report 2009 KOCHNEL BANJES & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2009(2) CDC279 327
6.1 on page 3 of exhibit C where the respondents stated that it is specifically denied “ dat daar op enige relevante tydperk valse en/of bedrieglike en/of vervalste dokumente deur enige van die respondente saamgestel is of laat saamstel” and further “te alle relevante tye is alle dokumentasie ter sprake wat tot ‘n besoldigingsbeslagleggingsbevel gelei het, reëlmatig en ooreenkomstig die reëls van die hof by die klerk van die siviele hof se kantore te Johannesburg ingehandig vir die nodige prosessering.” Contrary to this statement there is the letter from Kochnel, Bantjes dated 31 March 2006 to Maravedi which contains inter alia the following: “We drew Mr JM Tabane’s file and visited the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on Friday 17 March 2006, where we found the following: • T was confirmed that case number 95462/2005 contained the matter of Standard Bank of South Africa vs Sports Retail Concepts cc and Mr HLJ Williams. • Other case numbers from our portfolio proved also to contain different cases on the court file to what our documentation indicated. • The Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court stamps used on our documents, are acknowledged by court staff to be genuine, but they say that anyone from that section can obtain access to these stamps. • The two signatures that appear on all our documents processed through the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court over the past two years were made by the same person(s) according to a handwriting expert. Ms Abrahams of the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court however claims that these signatures are fraudulent, but our investigations at this stage indicate otherwise. • According to staff of the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court they only write case numbers on EAOs by hand, except disciplinary inquiry report 2009 KOCHNEL BANJES & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2009(2) CDC279 327