Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd v Kegtlengrivier Local Municipality (3200/19) [2021] ZANWHC 47 (20 April 2021)

Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd v Kegtlengrivier Local Municipality (3200/19) [2021] ZANWHC 47 (20 April 2021)

The court held that the respondent was entitled to file a notice of exception in response to the notice of bar, provided it was done within the period specified by the notice. The authorities cited confirm that an exception is a valid procedural step under Rule 26 and Rule 23, and the respondent complied with the rules by delivering the exception before the expiry of the notice of bar period. The applicant's submission that only a plea is permissible after a notice of bar was rejected. The application for default judgment was therefore dismissed, as the respondent was not barred from pleading and had taken appropriate procedural steps.

Citation
[2021] ZANWHC 47
Parties
Applicant: Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2021
Case Number
3200/19
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Following Notices of Bar and Exceptions
Outcome
Application for default judgment dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
A.M. Mtembu
Legal Topics
Notice of Bar, Exception Procedure, Default Judgment, Rule 23, Rule 26
Civil Procedure Notice of Bar Exception Procedure Default Judgment Rule 23 Rule 26

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Following Notices of Bar and Exceptions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was ipso facto barred from pleading for failure to deliver a plea after notice of bar.
  2. 2 Whether an exception is an appropriate procedural response to a notice of bar under the Uniform Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the application for default judgment should be granted in light of the respondent's procedural steps.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was entitled to file a notice of exception in response to the notice of bar, provided it was done within the period specified by the notice. The authorities cited confirm that an exception is a valid procedural step under Rule 26 and Rule 23, and the respondent complied with the rules by delivering the exception before the expiry of the notice of bar period. The applicant's submission that only a plea is permissible after a notice of bar was rejected. The application for default judgment was therefore dismissed, as the respondent was not barred from pleading and had taken appropriate procedural steps.

Court Disposition

Application for default judgment dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for default judgment is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.