LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback

Law
Cite


Cases Referring to this Case | Law Reform Reports Referring to this Case | Law Journal Articles Referring to this Case | Legislation Cited | Cases and Articles Cited

Help

Hogsett v Buys     2

[1913] CPD 200

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name Citation(s) Court †  Jurisdiction Date Full Text Citation Index
Mayne v Main (182/99) [2001] ZASCA 35; [2001] 3 All SA 157 Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa South Africa 23 Mar 2001 SAFLII flag 1
Purpose of rule 4 is to provide for a mechanism by which relative certainty can be obtained that service has been effected upon a defendant If certain minimum standards are complied with as set out in the rule, then the assumption is made that the service was sufficient to reach the defendant's attention and his failure to take steps is not due to the fact that he does not have knowledge of the summons The converse is not true — namely that if service is not effected as required by the rule, the service is not effective — in that the purpose for which service is required was fulfilled, namely the defendant came to know of the summons The rules, as was pointed out by Roux J in United Reflective Converters (Pty) Ltd v Levine, 1 988 SA 460 South Africa 10 May 2016 LexisNexis flag 2

LawCite: Privacy | Disclaimers | Conditions of Use | Acknowledgements | Feedback