ABSA Bank v Murray (EL 1130/2013) [2025] ZAECELLC 2 (4 February 2025)

ABSA Bank v Murray (EL 1130/2013) [2025] ZAECELLC 2 (4 February 2025)

The court found that the defendant's delivery of the amended plea was irregular because it did not comply with the procedural requirements of Uniform Rule 28, namely the provision of notice, particulars, and an opportunity for objection. The prior court order did not expressly authorise a deviation from Rule 28, nor did it constitute a waiver by the plaintiff of its right to object. The absence of a declaration by the plaintiff further complicated the matter, rendering the defendant's plea and amendment premature. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 30(1) to set aside the amended plea, directing the plaintiff to regularise its pleadings before requiring the defendant to plead....

Citation
[2025] ZAECELLC 2
Parties
Applicant: ABSA Bank; Respondent: Gary Murray; Respondent: Intuitive PDA (PTY) LTD
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2025
Case Number
EL 1130/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application Under Rule 30(1) to Set Aside Amended Plea as Irregular
Outcome
The defendant's amended plea is set aside as irregular. The plaintiff is directed to regularise its pleadings before the defendant is required to plead. Each party is to pay their own costs of the application.
Judges
B Hartle
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admissions, Uniform Rule 28, Uniform Rule 30, Costs Orders, Case Management
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admissions Uniform Rule 28 Uniform Rule 30 Costs Orders Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABSA Bank

Applicant

Gary Murray

Respondent

Intuitive PDA (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application Under Rule 30(1) to Set Aside Amended Plea as Irregular

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's delivery of an amended plea without compliance with Uniform Rule 28 constitutes an irregular step.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was authorised by a prior court order to deviate from the procedure prescribed by Rule 28.
  3. 3 Whether the withdrawal of admissions in the amended plea required an affidavit and proper explanation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's delivery of the amended plea was irregular because it did not comply with the procedural requirements of Uniform Rule 28, namely the provision of notice, particulars, and an opportunity for objection. The prior court order did not expressly authorise a deviation from Rule 28, nor did it constitute a waiver by the plaintiff of its right to object. The absence of a declaration by the plaintiff further complicated the matter, rendering the defendant's plea and amendment premature. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 30(1) to set aside the amended plea, directing the plaintiff to regularise its pleadings before requiring the defendant to plead....

Court Disposition

The defendant's amended plea is set aside as irregular. The plaintiff is directed to regularise its pleadings before the defendant is required to plead. Each party is to pay their own costs of the application.

Orders

  • The delivery of the defendant's putative amended plea is set aside.
  • The plaintiff is directed to take steps to regularise its pleadings in accordance with the uniform rules of court before the defendant is required to plead.