Bindco (Pty) Limited and Others v Technologies Acceptances (Pty) Ltd (40187/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 196 (19 October 2010)

Bindco (Pty) Limited and Others v Technologies Acceptances (Pty) Ltd (40187/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 196 (19 October 2010)

The court found that the summons and particulars of claim issued by the plaintiff, despite the unusual form and lack of counsel's signature, constituted a combined summons as envisaged by Rule 17. The failure to have the summons signed by counsel was excipiable but did not render the summons null and void, and could be condoned by the court. Since the defendants had already pleaded to the particulars of claim, the plaintiff's subsequent notice of bar was an irregular step. The court set aside the notice of bar and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the application.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 196
Parties
Applicant: Bindco (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Gerleza Belegging (Pty) Limited; Applicant: JGT Vermaak; Applicant: Nedine Vermaak; Respondent: Technologies Acceptances (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 October 2010
Case Number
40187/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Notice of Bar as Irregular Step
Outcome
Application to set aside the notice of bar is granted.
Judges
BAM
Legal Topics
Combined Summons, Rule 17, Rule 18, Irregular Step, Notice of Bar, Rule 30 Application
Civil Procedure Combined Summons Rule 17 Rule 18 Irregular Step Notice of Bar Rule 30 Application

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bindco (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Gerleza Belegging (Pty) Limited

Applicant

JGT Vermaak

Applicant

Nedine Vermaak

Applicant

Technologies Acceptances (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Notice of Bar as Irregular Step

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summons and particulars of claim constitute a combined summons under Rule 17(3).
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's notice of bar was an irregular step.
  3. 3 Whether failure to have the summons signed by counsel renders it null and void.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the summons and particulars of claim issued by the plaintiff, despite the unusual form and lack of counsel's signature, constituted a combined summons as envisaged by Rule 17. The failure to have the summons signed by counsel was excipiable but did not render the summons null and void, and could be condoned by the court. Since the defendants had already pleaded to the particulars of claim, the plaintiff's subsequent notice of bar was an irregular step. The court set aside the notice of bar and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the notice of bar is granted.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's notice of bar dated 16 March 2010 is set aside.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the application.