THE
HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND IDALINA VAN WYK
Applicant
And
ANDRIES
STEPHANUS VAN WYK
Respondent
In
Re:
ANDRIES
STEPHUNUS VAN WYK
Applicant
And
IDALINA VAN WYK
Respondent
Civil
Case No. 1767/98
Coram S.B.
MAPHALALA - J
For
the Applicant MR. MATSEBULA
For
the Respondent MR. MAGAGULA
JUDGMENT
(On
condonation of late filing of applicant's answering affidavit)
(11/12/2002)
2
Before
me is an application for condonation for the late filing of
applicant's answering affidavit.
The
application is opposed by the respondent being represented by Mr.
Magagula on the grounds that the applicant has not advanced
sufficient reasons justifying the late filing of the said affidavit.
Mr. Matsebula countered this submission by directing the court's
attention to paragraph 15 of the applicant's answering affidavit
which reads in extenso as follows:
"Delay
I
apologise for having to file the answering affidavit two days later
than the last day on which I should have done so. The reason is that
I am a sickly person suffering a series of ailments such as
hypertension, stress and nervous breakdown emanating from the long
history of abuse and ill-treatment I have been subjected to by my
husband prior and after our separation. I have therefore been in and
out of hospital both in the country and South Africa for medical
attention for the past month or so making it difficult for my
attorney to get hold of me to put together this affidavit timeously".
Mr.
Matsebula submitted that the above paragraph gives a satisfactory
explanation to move the court to grant condonation as sought by the
applicant.
The
filing of answering affidavit by a respondent is governed by Rule 6
(12) of the High Court Rules which reads in part as follows:
"12 Any
person opposing the grant of an order sought in the notice of motion
shall:
a) ...............
b) Within
fourteen days of service on him of the notice of motion, deliver his
answering affidavit, if any, together with any relevant documents:
and;
c) ......................................"
I
have considered the matter carefully and I am satisfied by the
reasons advanced by the applicant in paragraph 15 of its answering
affidavit and would thus condone the late filing of same.
3
In
the result, I grant the order in terms of prayer (a) as reflected in
the counter-application and rule further that the matter is to take
its normal course.
Costs
to be costs in the main application.
S.B.
MAPHALALA
JUDGE
