Hubby’s Investments (Pty) Ltd v Lifetime Properties (Pty) Ltd 1998 (1) SA 289 (W)

Hubby’s Investments (Pty) Ltd v Lifetime Properties (Pty) Ltd 1998 (1) SA 289 (W)

Issue: Whether a court can grant an order allowing a party to supplement their founding affidavit in the absence of a proper explanation for the delay in providing the additional information.

Facts:

The applicant, Hubby’s Investments, sought to have the respondent, Lifetime Properties, interdicted from transferring certain property until the resolution of a dispute between the parties. Hubby’s Investments' founding affidavit was based, in part, on the contents of a letter of demand that had been sent to Lifetime Properties. However, the letter of demand was not attached to the founding affidavit.

The respondent raised an objection to the founding affidavit on the grounds that the letter of demand was not attached to the affidavit. Hubby’s Investments then sought to supplement its founding affidavit by attaching the letter of demand. The respondent objected to the supplementation on the grounds that Hubby’s Investments had not provided a proper explanation for the delay in providing the additional information.

Held:

The court held that it could not allow Hubby’s Investments to supplement its founding affidavit. The court reasoned that Hubby’s Investments had not provided a proper explanation for the delay in providing the additional information. The court also found that the letter of demand was a material document and that its absence from the founding affidavit had prejudiced the respondent.

Reasons:

• The court found that the letter of demand was a material document.
• The court reasoned that the letter of demand was necessary to support Hubby’s Investments' claim that Lifetime Properties had been aware of the dispute between the parties.
• The court also found that the absence of the letter of demand from the founding affidavit had prejudiced the respondent.
• The court reasoned that the respondent had been unable to properly prepare its defense without the letter of demand.

Key Facts:

• The applicant sought to have the respondent interdicted from transferring certain property.
• The applicant's founding affidavit was based, in part, on the contents of a letter of demand.
• The letter of demand was not attached to the founding affidavit.
• The respondent objected to the founding affidavit on the grounds that the letter of demand was not attached to the affidavit.
• The applicant then sought to supplement its founding affidavit by attaching the letter of demand.
• The respondent objected to the supplementation on the grounds that the applicant had not provided a proper explanation for the delay in providing the additional information.

Conclusion:

The court's decision in Hubby’s Investments (Pty) Ltd v Lifetime Properties (Pty) Ltd 1998 (1) SA 289 (W) highlights the importance of providing complete and accurate information in founding affidavits. The court's decision also makes it clear that courts will not allow parties to supplement their founding affidavits unless they can provide a proper explanation for the delay in providing the additional information.