Parties involved in legal disputes have been reminded of the paramount importance of prosecuting claims in a timely manner.
The message was conveyed in a significant ruling by the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg. In this matter, insurer Sasria SOC sought the dismissal of a longstanding claim by TUHF Limited financial institution due to considerable delays in prosecution.
Sasria was initially embroiled in legal proceedings against TUHF and other parties concerning damages sustained to properties located in Berea, Johannesburg, between 2014 and 2015. TUHF, which sought indemnification from Sasria, alleged that the damages were instigated by a protest action involving the SACP and the Mzanzi Progressive Movement (MPM).
TUHF contends that the purpose of the incitement by SACP and MPM was to bring about, inter alia, social and economic change to the inner-city of Johannesburg and to protest against the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. It is on this basis that TUHF sought indemnification in terms of Sasria.
Despite the case being filed as far back as March 24, 2017, activity surrounding the prosecution stagnated, particularly after a settlement agreement was reached with co-defendants in 2019.
Judge LR Adams scrutinised the legal arguments surrounding the claim, culminating in a decision that branded TUHF's protracted delay as 'without justification or necessity.' The court noted that despite assertions from TUHF claiming it had been consulting extensively with experts to strategise its claim, no substantial progress had been made for over three years following the last development in 2019.
Central to Judge Adams’ reasoning was the necessity for plaintiffs in proceedings to act with diligence — a standard TUHF was found lacking. The court underscored critical factors, including the magnitude of delay, the absence of credible explanations, and the serious prejudice Sasria would face in mounting a defence if the case proceeded after 11 years since the claims were initiated.
In her judgement, Judge Adams referenced established legal principles as laid out in prior rulings, emphasising that inordinate delay in the prosecution of an action can indeed constitute an abuse of the court process. As such, TUHF's failure to produce expert testimony was deemed inadequate given the timelines involved, effectively rendering Sasria's right to a fair trial untenable.
The ruling stipulates that TUHF will be liable for costs incurred during the application, which included fees for two counsel.
#Conviction
