Anthony Wilton Thinane Incorporated v Ralebipi (17185/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 553 (9 June 2025)

Anthony Wilton Thinane Incorporated v Ralebipi (17185/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 553 (9 June 2025)

The court found that the October 2023 order, specifically paragraph 2 striking out the applicant's plea and defence, was erroneously sought and granted. The order was based on an agreement between the parties regarding the delivery of expert reports, but the 'double barrel' approach of compelling compliance and simultaneously striking out the defence deprived the applicant of the right to be heard on its reasons for non-compliance. The applicant subsequently complied with the order, albeit late, and condonation for the late filing was justified in the interests of justice. The court held that the striking out of the plea was not warranted without a further determination of the facts...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 553
Parties
Applicant: Anthony Wilton Thinane Incorporated; Respondent: Malasela Hezekiel Ralebipi
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2025
Case Number
17185/2017
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Interlocutory Order; Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission granted in part; paragraph 2 of the October 2023 order rescinded; applicant's plea reinstated; costs to be costs in the action.
Judges
Khashane La M Manamela
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42, Expert Evidence, Condonation, Striking Out of Plea
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42 Expert Evidence Condonation Striking Out of Plea

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Wilton Thinane Incorporated

Applicant

Malasela Hezekiel Ralebipi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Interlocutory Order; Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the October 2023 order was erroneously sought and granted in terms of Rule 42(1)(a).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to rescission of the order striking out its plea and defence.
  3. 3 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the rescission application and late compliance with Rule 36(9)(b).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the October 2023 order, specifically paragraph 2 striking out the applicant's plea and defence, was erroneously sought and granted. The order was based on an agreement between the parties regarding the delivery of expert reports, but the 'double barrel' approach of compelling compliance and simultaneously striking out the defence deprived the applicant of the right to be heard on its reasons for non-compliance. The applicant subsequently complied with the order, albeit late, and condonation for the late filing was justified in the interests of justice. The court held that the striking out of the plea was not warranted without a further determination of the facts...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission granted in part; paragraph 2 of the October 2023 order rescinded; applicant's plea reinstated; costs to be costs in the action.

Orders

  • The late filing of the rescission application is condoned.
  • Paragraph 2 of the order granted on 4 October 2023 is rescinded and set aside; the applicant's plea and defence are reinstated.