Dale v Riaan Du Plessis Attorneys and Conveyancers and Others (38406/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 154 (28 February 2022)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPPHC 154 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Dale v Riaan Du Plessis Attorneys and Conveyancers and Others (38406/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 154 (28 February 2022) Dale v Riaan Du Plessis Attorneys and Conveyancers and Others (38406/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 154 (28 February 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_154.html sino date 28 February 2022 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:38406/2020 DOH: 21 FEBRUARY 2022 In the matter of: DALE IRENE Applicant and RIAAN DU PLESSIS ATTORNEYS & CONVEYANCERS First Respondent JOHANNES CHRISTIAN DU PLESSIS Second Respondent P J KLEYNHANS INCORPORATED    ATTORNEYS Third Respondent LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Fourth Respondent JUDGMENT THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN REMOTELY AND SHALL BE CIRCULATED TO THE PARTIES BY WAY OF EMAIL. ITS DATE AND TIME OF 2022/02/28 A. Introduction 1. This matter was heard on 21 February 2022. 2. The second respondent practices as a sole practitioner. Thus, notwithstanding the citation of the first and second respondents, they are essentially the same person. The third and fourth respondents are not participating in this matter. For that reason, I use respondent when referring to the first and second respondents. 3. The applicant, as the party that is dominus litis, bears the responsibility to ensure that her papers are in order. 4. Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules is applicable. Ex facie the papers, Rule 63 has not been complied with. Thus, there is no application before court. On that basis, the ‘application’ cannot succeed. B. Order 5. In the circumstances, I make the following order: (i) The application is dismissed. (ii) The applicant must pay the first and second respnodents’ costs. NN BAM JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT , PRETORIA Appearances: Counsel for the applicants:                    Adv Mureriwa Instructed by:                                            Makota Attorneys For the respondents                                Adv Grobler SC Instructed by:                                            JC Du Plessis Attorneys ℅ Jansen and Jansen sino noindex make_database footer start