In the matter between:

And

JUDGMENT

In relation to the postponement application, I have read the papers, both of the postponement application as well as of the main application. I have heard extensive submissions made by counsel in this matter. I have looked at the authorities, some of which are familiar to me and it can certainly be regarded as trite, particularly in relation to a postponement application of this nature and f have to have regard primarily to the authority of Myburgh Transport v Botha, t/a SA Truck Bodies, 1991(3) SA 310 (NMS) which in my view establishes the principles applicable to a Court dealing with an application for postponement of a hearing and to quote they are as follows,
"1.     The trial Court has a discretion as to whether an application for a postponement should be granted or refused." 

It clearly - so it really applies to a Court dealing with an application as well.
"2.    That discretion must be exercised judicially. It should  not be exercised  capriciously or upon any wrong principle, but for substantial reasons."
And then the Court goes on to describe a whole host of other criteria and then finally deaEs with the following propositions, namely;
"5. A Court should be slow to refuse a postponement where the true reasons for a parties non preparedness has been fully explained where his unreadiness to proceed is not due to delaying tactics and where justice demands that he should have further time for the purpose of presenting his case." 
The Court in that matter goes on to say the following;
"6. An application for a postponement must be made timeously or as soon as his circumstances which might justify, such an application become known to the Applicant. Where however fundamental fairness and justice justifies a postponement, the   Court may in an appropriate case allow such an application   for  postponement,   even   if  the application was not timeously made." 
The Court then goes on to say the following,

8.	Considerations of prejudice will ordinarily constitute the dominant component of the total structure in terms of which the discretion of a Court will be exercised. What the Court has primarily to consider is whether any prejudice caused by a postponement to the adversary of the Applicant for postponement can fairly be compensated by an appropriate order for costs or any other ancillary mechanisms.
9.	The Court should weigh the prejudice which will be caused to the Respondent in such an application if the postponement is g ranted against the prejudice which will be caused to the Applicant if it is not.
10.Where the Applicant for a postponement has not made his application timeously or is otherwise to blame with respect to the procedure which he has followed, but justice nevertheless justifies a postponement in the particular circumstances of a case, the Court in its discretion might allow the postponement, but direct the Applicant in the suitable case to pay the wasted costs of the postponement occasion to such a Respondent on the scale of an attorney and client. Such an Applicant might even be directed to pay the costs of his adversary before he's allowed to proceed with his action or defence in the action as the case may be."

I am of course concerned that on the Respondent's own version there appears to be allegations of the improper use of company funds and whether this is directly prejudicial to the

ALLIE, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between:
FADL HENDRICKS				APPLICANT

And

CAPE KINGDOM (PTY) LTD			RESPONDENT

ORDER

An order is made in terms of the Draft as varied.
ALLIE, J