Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]          The applicant seeks, in the main, to review a subpoena issued by the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector, Including Organs of State ("the Commission").

[2]          The applicant's complaint is that the subpoena did not contain all the necessary information.  Specifically, the subpoena was not in terms of the format prescribed by section 3(2) of the Commissions Act, 8 of 1947 and did not sufficiently draw the applicant's attention to his rights and obligations. 

[3]          The application was moved in the unopposed motion court.  Naturally, this Court's attention, in unopposed court, turns first to the requirements of notice.  The purpose of notice is to ensure the respondents are aware of the relief being sought against them and is provided an adequate opportunity to defend against that relief.  As the respondents are not before the Court, the Court has to satisfy itself that their absence is not as a result of inadequate notice. 

[4]          In this case, the particular notice requirement at play, is found in Rule 6(5)(b)(iii) of the Uniform Rules of Court.[1]  Rule 6(5)(b)(iii) requires that the notice of motion must provide that the application will be moved on a "stated day".  The notice of motion did not provide a "stated day" on which the relief would be sought.  Consequently the respondents did not know on what day the application was to be moved. 

[5]          The Court has to determine whether the respondents have received adequate notice of the relief being sought.