defendants allege that the plaintiffs did not render any accounts for the unaccounted fees earned or generated and that any amount that may be owed to the plaintiff must be set off against the amounts owing to the defendants. To this, the first plaintiff pleads firstly that she did not earn director’s fees during January 2012 and only –February since March 2012. In addition, the plaintiff pleads that the claim by the defendants has prescribed by February 2012 and the summons were only served on 27 February 2015, being more than three years after the amounts became due. In summation, plaintiffs deny any form of liability towards the defendants. [5] The defendants allege that the explanation tendered by the plaintiffs is unreasonable and tainted with insufficient particularities to sustain a reasonable and bona fide explanation. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s, as dominis litis, ought to have exercised a degree of responsibility in ensuring that the instructions is given to counsel on time, that the documents stored did not include those of the present matter; and ultimately that the dates, as ordered by the court are adhered to. The defendants thus deny that good cause has been shown and that a case has been made out for the court’s indulgence and condonation as sought. [6] Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff argued before the that it is humanely impossible for legal practitioners to always comply with the time lines set by the court, hence the discretion given to a court to lift any bar and that in the absence of any prejudice suffered by the defendants, their opposition is unnecessary and uncompromising. Counsel for the defendants maintained that the period between February 2015, when the plea and counter claim was filed, and May 2015, when the replication and plea to counterclaim was eventually filed, has not been sufficiently explained. Counsel maintained that too long periods have passed and has not been explained; the founding papers shows no effort or initiative from the plaintiffs to at least alert the defendants of their inability to adhere to the deadlines agreed on in the joint case plan or seek audience with the judge to extend the time lines. This type of behaviour, counsel submits, is unreasonable.
defendants allege that the plaintiffs did not render any accounts for the unaccounted fees earned or generated and that any amount that may be owed to the plaintiff must be set off against the amounts owing to the defendants. To this, the first plaintiff pleads firstly that she did not earn director’s fees during January –February 2012 and only since March 2012. In addition, the plaintiff pleads that the claim by the defendants has prescribed by February 2012 and the summons were only served on 27 February 2015, being more than three years after the amounts became due. In summation, plaintiffs deny any form of liability towards the defendants. [5] The defendants allege that the explanation tendered by the plaintiffs is unreasonable and tainted with insufficient particularities to sustain a reasonable and bona fide explanation. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s, as dominis litis, ought to have exercised a degree of responsibility in ensuring that the instructions is given to counsel on time, that the documents stored did not include those of the present matter; and ultimately that the dates, as ordered by the court are adhered to. The defendants thus deny that good cause has been shown and that a case has been made out for the court’s indulgence and condonation as sought. [6] Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff argued before the that it is humanely impossible for legal practitioners to always comply with the time lines set by the court, hence the discretion given to a court to lift any bar and that in the absence of any prejudice suffered by the defendants, their opposition is unnecessary and uncompromising. Counsel for the defendants maintained that the period between February 2015, when the plea and counter claim was filed, and May 2015, when the replication and plea to counterclaim was eventually filed, has not been sufficiently explained. Counsel maintained that too long periods have passed and has not been explained; the founding papers shows no effort or initiative from the plaintiffs to at least alert the defendants of their inability to adhere to the deadlines agreed on in the joint case plan or seek audience with the judge to extend the time lines. This type of behaviour, counsel submits, is unreasonable.
Angula%20v%20LorentzAngula%20Inc%20(I%20599-2015)%20%5B2016%5D%20NAHCMD%2078%20(17%20March%202016).docx