It might be time to present you with a few FACTS regarding our legal disputes with Safe Security Hermanus over the last few years. July 2008 :
We launched an urgent application under High Court case number 11537/2008 to prevent Safe Hermanus from further debiting our clients' bank accounts as Secma International CC is duly contracted to each of our clients.
The case was postponed to the semi-urgent roll and was heard on 10 November 2008. FACT : On 21 December 2008 this case was dismissed as it was regarded as not urgent enough (which is the obvious reason why urgent applications are dismissed).
Richard Reck of Safe Hermanus now contends that it was regarded as an abuse of process, when the actual wording on the court order reads :
It is ordered : That the application is dismissed with costs.
Nothing more.
Which beckons one to ask WHY would Reck's strongly worded version then be incorrect?
Honest mistake?
You be the judge...... (This is public record, so it will be easy to confirm my version of events)
Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus
No comments:
Post a Comment