relief is sought against a person or where it is necessary or proper to ‘Where give a person notice of such application, the notice of motion must be addressed to both the registrar and that person, otherwise, the notice must be addressed to the registrar only.’ [32] This subrule, in my view, reinforces a very fundamental tenet of justice, namely that a person who may have an interest in any order sought, should be afforded an opportunity to be heard in respect of that relief sought. The exception may be if the application is ex parte and the relief sought does not have any bearing or detrimental effect on any other person’s rights or interests. There may well be cases, which are an exception, where although a party may be prejudicially affected by the order sought, the court may be convinced that it is proper to grant a rule nisi without hearing that party for stated reasons, which may include notice of the application serving to defeat the avoidance of harm sought to be forestalled. [33] The current application leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth and shocks the sensibilities of my judicial palate. I say so for the reason that the application seeks to have certain parties joined on specified reasons but they have not been served with the application and are not before court. Certain allegations have been made about them and their interests and rights that may be prejudicially affected if they are not joined have been placed before court on affidavit. Sadly, these persons have not been served with the application and they are, from present indications, totally oblivious to the relief sought and the grounds upon which it is being sought. [34] I am accordingly of the considered view that the application for joinder cannot and should not be granted in the present circumstances, where the parties affected by it are not cited and have not been served with the application to enable them to place their position before court and try as they may, to influence the direction that a proper order, which caters for all the interested parties’ rights and interests is made. I would be loathe to make an order in terms of which the proposed defendants are faced with a fait not having seen the inside of the courtroom that has made a accompli,
‘Where relief is sought against a person or where it is necessary or proper to give a person notice of such application, the notice of motion must be addressed to both the registrar and that person, otherwise, the notice must be addressed to the registrar only.’ [32] This subrule, in my view, reinforces a very fundamental tenet of justice, namely that a person who may have an interest in any order sought, should be afforded an opportunity to be heard in respect of that relief sought. The exception may be if the application is ex parte and the relief sought does not have any bearing or detrimental effect on any other person’s rights or interests. There may well be cases, which are an exception, where although a party may be prejudicially affected by the order sought, the court may be convinced that it is proper to grant a rule nisi without hearing that party for stated reasons, which may include notice of the application serving to defeat the avoidance of harm sought to be forestalled. [33] The current application leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth and shocks the sensibilities of my judicial palate. I say so for the reason that the application seeks to have certain parties joined on specified reasons but they have not been served with the application and are not before court. Certain allegations have been made about them and their interests and rights that may be prejudicially affected if they are not joined have been placed before court on affidavit. Sadly, these persons have not been served with the application and they are, from present indications, totally oblivious to the relief sought and the grounds upon which it is being sought. [34] I am accordingly of the considered view that the application for joinder cannot and should not be granted in the present circumstances, where the parties affected by it are not cited and have not been served with the application to enable them to place their position before court and try as they may, to influence the direction that a proper order, which caters for all the interested parties’ rights and interests is made. I would be loathe to make an order in terms of which the proposed defendants are faced with a fait accompli, not having seen the inside of the courtroom that has made a