{"issue_text":"Whether applicant can remedy failure to seek leave by ex post facto chamber application","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Supplementary affidavit filed without leave on 9 May 2011"}
{"issue_text":"Whether applicant provided satisfactory explanation for failure to include information earlier","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Former legal practitioner dispute; two-month delay after renunciation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether application amounts to withdrawal of admissions without following rule 189","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Admissions made in paragraph 8 of opposing affidavit"}
{"issue_text":"Whether supplementary affidavit offends parole evidence rule","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Seeks to contradict written contract terms"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought leave to admit a supplementary opposing affidavit that had been filed without prior court leave. The affidavit sought to allege that a property sale agreement was in fact a disguised loan agreement, contradicting earlier admissions made in the principal matter under HC 1130/11.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases