Accordingly, this matter was postponed by agreement between the parties to 21 July 2015 at 09h00 in order to enable papers to be filed on behalf of the fourth to eighth respondents. The fourth to eighth respondents were ordered to file their answering affidavits on 15 July 2015 and the applicant his replying affidavit on or before 20 July 2015. The fourth to eighth respondents filed substantial answering affidavits on 15 July 2015 and also took the point in limine that the matter was not urgent. On 21 July 2015 the matter was again postponed by agreement to 30 July 2015 as the applicant was not able to file his replying affidavit in time. Counsel for the respondents did not oppose the request for additional time to file the replying affidavit. It is noted at this stage that the answering affidavits ran into some 160 pages, 132 of which comprised annexures which were not even properly referred to, either in terms of contents of the annexures, the references thereto or what portions exactly the court was to consider. The point in limine relating to urgency comprised about 2 pages only. Needless to say, this made consideration of the answering papers quite cumbersome. Some documentation was not even filed in the official language, and no translation was provided. It is necessary to remind, regard being had to the function of affidavits, that a deponent is required to identify the portion of the annexure on which he or she intends to rely on, so an opponent knows what case must be met. It is not open to a party to merely annex documentation to an affidavit, request the court to have regard to it and not at least point out to court which portions of the annexure are relied on. This is even more important when annexures are bulky or lengthy. Urgency having been raised in limine is considered at the outset. The submission of Mr is in essence that the applicant failed to comply with the requirements of rule 73(4) and that the application is not urgent. It was further stated in the notice that the applicant has not shown cause why he cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course, and that he has not satisfactorily placed before the court the circumstances which he avers renders the matter urgent.
Accordingly, this matter was postponed by agreement between the parties to 21 July 2015 at 09h00 in order to enable papers to be filed on behalf of the fourth to eighth respondents. The fourth to eighth respondents were ordered to file their answering affidavits on 15 July 2015 and the applicant his replying affidavit on or before 20 July 2015. The fourth to eighth respondents filed substantial answering affidavits on 15 July 2015 and also took the point in limine that the matter was not urgent. On 21 July 2015 the matter was again postponed by agreement to 30 July 2015 as the applicant was not able to file his replying affidavit in time. Counsel for the respondents did not oppose the request for additional time to file the replying affidavit. It is noted at this stage that the answering affidavits ran into some 160 pages, 132 of which comprised annexures which were not even properly referred to, either in terms of contents of the annexures, the references thereto or what portions exactly the court was to consider. The point in limine relating to urgency comprised about 2 pages only. Needless to say, this made consideration of the answering papers quite cumbersome. Some documentation was not even filed in the official language, and no translation was provided. It is necessary to remind, regard being had to the function of affidavits, that a deponent is required to identify the portion of the annexure on which he or she intends to rely on, so an opponent knows what case must be met. It is not open to a party to merely annex documentation to an affidavit, request the court to have regard to it and not at least point out to court which portions of the annexure are relied on. This is even more important when annexures are bulky or lengthy. Urgency having been raised in limine is considered at the outset. The submission of Mr is in essence that the applicant failed to comply with the requirements of rule 73(4) and that the application is not urgent. It was further stated in the notice that the applicant has not shown cause why he cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course, and that he has not satisfactorily placed before the court the circumstances which he avers renders the matter urgent.