Adfin v Durable Engineering Works

The case of *Adfin (Pty) Ltd v Durable Engineering Works (Pty) Ltd* [1991] 2 SA 366 (C) is a significant decision in South African civil procedure law. The applicant, represented by attorneys Saacks & Jaffe and advocate E. Sakinofsky, sought to set aside the respondent's combined summons as irregular, arguing that Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court and section 407(4)(a) of the Companies Act required proceedings on review to be conducted by notice of motion rather than through a combined summons.

The court dismissed the application, holding that neither Rule 53 nor section 407(4)(a) rendered notice of motion proceedings peremptory. Berman J emphasized that the Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own procedure and condone non-compliance with procedural rules if justice requires it. While Rule 53 and section 407(4)(a) were acknowledged as procedural provisions intended to assist parties, they were not seen as mandatory or peremptory. The court concluded that the use of a combined summons was not irregular, affirming the validity of the respondent's approach.

The judgment highlights the flexibility of South African civil procedure and the court's discretion to adapt procedures in the interest of justice.