On 12 March 2013, the plaintiff’s legal practitioner provided an index which included the pleadings, the restitution order made by Mr Justice Smuts on 13 August 2012 as well as transcripts of the hearing before Mr Justice Geier on 22 October 2012 and before Mr Justice Unengu Acting on 19 November 2012. The plaintiff’s legal practitioner also delivered a which she submitted set “note” out what relief the plaintiff was seeking and the legal basis for the relief sought. In essence the plaintiff sought an order reinstating the rule nisi previously granted in court on 13 August 2012 by Mr Justice Smuts as well as an order that the aforesaid rule nisi be made final. The matter was argued in full before me on this date. Ms Nambinga submitted that at the hearing of 22 October 2012 before Mr Justice Geier, the court ordered that the parties file affidavits to show cause why the ancillary relief sought in the restitution order should not be made final. Since that date, no such affidavits had been filed. Yet Mr Mbaeva sought to file a request for further particulars instead. This aspect is set out in the relevant portion of the transcript quoted above. Mr Mbaeva appearing on behalf of the defendant made identical submissions to this court as he made to Mr Justice Unengu Acting at the hearing of 19 November 2012, namely that the court order of Mr Justice Geier indicated that the defendant had been granted leave to defend and further that it was not clear what papers were being referred to in the court order, thus he was permitted to request for further particulars. I specifically requested Mr Mbaeva to address the court on the representations made ex facie the transcript of proceedings to Mr Justice Geier on 22 October 2012, on the return date of the restitution order, to the effect that he relied on the case of Vahekeni v Vahekeni for the defendant’s right to address the court on ancillary issues and further that he undertook to the court that he would file the defendant’s affidavit within one week. Mr Mbaeva conceded that he had made such an undertaking to court,
On 12 March 2013, the plaintiff’s legal practitioner provided an index which included the pleadings, the restitution order made by Mr Justice Smuts on 13 August 2012 as well as transcripts of the hearing before Mr Justice Geier on 22 October 2012 and before Mr Justice Unengu Acting on 19 November 2012. The plaintiff’s legal practitioner also delivered a “note” which she submitted set out what relief the plaintiff was seeking and the legal basis for the relief sought. In essence the plaintiff sought an order reinstating the rule nisi previously granted in court on 13 August 2012 by Mr Justice Smuts as well as an order that the aforesaid rule nisi be made final. The matter was argued in full before me on this date. Ms Nambinga submitted that at the hearing of 22 October 2012 before Mr Justice Geier, the court ordered that the parties file affidavits to show cause why the ancillary relief sought in the restitution order should not be made final. Since that date, no such affidavits had been filed. Yet Mr Mbaeva sought to file a request for further particulars instead. This aspect is set out in the relevant portion of the transcript quoted above. Mr Mbaeva appearing on behalf of the defendant made identical submissions to this court as he made to Mr Justice Unengu Acting at the hearing of 19 November 2012, namely that the court order of Mr Justice Geier indicated that the defendant had been granted leave to defend and further that it was not clear what papers were being referred to in the court order, thus he was permitted to request for further particulars. I specifically requested Mr Mbaeva to address the court on the representations made ex facie the transcript of proceedings to Mr Justice Geier on 22 October 2012, on the return date of the restitution order, to the effect that he relied on the case of Vahekeni v Vahekeni for the defendant’s right to address the court on ancillary issues and further that he undertook to the court that he would file the defendant’s affidavit within one week. Mr Mbaeva conceded that he had made such an undertaking to court,