explanation from the bar, several questions arise. The doctor stated in the certificate that the plaintiff suffers from the conditions mentioned, which is not the ‘possibly’ same as saying that the defendant chronically suffers from hypertension. In any event, if the defendant does suffer chronically from this condition and as he has already been booked off before because of this condition, resulting in the trial having to be postponed, why did the defendant not take care in advance to ensure that he is fit for the last two days specially set aside for the conclusion of the trial? [16] It seems to me that the defendant took a rather cavalier approach to the matter. The defendant knew very well from previous proceedings that the Court required an affidavit by the doctor, yet he appeared to be wholly unconcerned about this. His previous counsel stated as much on a previous occasion. After having been informed of the requirement on previous occasions, he should already have Court’s requested an affidavit when he consulted the doctor on 6 November 2012. [17] I must also say that the fact that the defendant always presented with alleged stomach problems and/or hypertension just when the trial is about to take place raises suspicion about his bona fides. As indicated in Court on 7 November 2012, this was part of the reason why I requested a proper application for postponement, which it is trite, should include a full explanation setting out all the reasons for requesting what is an indulgence. Such an explanation should logically have included information about the symptoms, when he started feeling ill, what he did about it, what treatment he received, etc. It is also relevant to know whether he in fact informed the doctor that he was supposed to be in attendance at the High Court for a civil matter which has already been postponed several times, including two postponements due to the health complaints. If the doctor was indeed defendant’s aware of the importance of the attendance at the proceedings, this might defendant’s conceivably have influenced his assessment of whether the defendant was after all fit to travel and to attend the proceedings with the benefit of medical treatment. [18] In Myburgh Transport v Botha t/a SA Truck Bodies 1991 NR 170 (SC) the Supreme Court set out the legal principles when considering an appeal against a
explanation from the bar, several questions arise. The doctor stated in the certificate that the plaintiff ‘possibly’ suffers from the conditions mentioned, which is not the same as saying that the defendant chronically suffers from hypertension. In any event, if the defendant does suffer chronically from this condition and as he has already been booked off before because of this condition, resulting in the trial having to be postponed, why did the defendant not take care in advance to ensure that he is fit for the last two days specially set aside for the conclusion of the trial? [16] It seems to me that the defendant took a rather cavalier approach to the matter. The defendant knew very well from previous proceedings that the Court required an affidavit by the doctor, yet he appeared to be wholly unconcerned about this. His previous counsel stated as much on a previous occasion. After having been informed of the Court’s requirement on previous occasions, he should already have requested an affidavit when he consulted the doctor on 6 November 2012. [17] I must also say that the fact that the defendant always presented with alleged stomach problems and/or hypertension just when the trial is about to take place raises suspicion about his bona fides. As indicated in Court on 7 November 2012, this was part of the reason why I requested a proper application for postponement, which it is trite, should include a full explanation setting out all the reasons for requesting what is an indulgence. Such an explanation should logically have included information about the symptoms, when he started feeling ill, what he did about it, what treatment he received, etc. It is also relevant to know whether he in fact informed the doctor that he was supposed to be in attendance at the High Court for a civil matter which has already been postponed several times, including two postponements due to the defendant’s health complaints. If the doctor was indeed aware of the importance of the defendant’s attendance at the proceedings, this might conceivably have influenced his assessment of whether the defendant was after all fit to travel and to attend the proceedings with the benefit of medical treatment. [18] In Myburgh Transport v Botha t/a SA Truck Bodies 1991 NR 170 (SC) the Supreme Court set out the legal principles when considering an appeal against a