Draht and Others v Manqele and Others (2014/29501) [2017] ZAGPPHC 44 (14 February 2017)

Draht and Others v Manqele and Others (2014/29501) [2017] ZAGPPHC 44 (14 February 2017)

The court held that Rule 26 does not apply to time periods prescribed by a court order, but only to those set out in the Rules or extended in terms of the Rules. Therefore, the applicants were not automatically barred from delivering their declaration for failing to comply with the time period in the court order. However, since the applicants delivered their declaration out of time and did not seek condonation or an extension under Rule 27, the application for default judgment was not properly before the court. The notice of bar issued by the applicants was set aside, the application for default judgment was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants. The applicants were...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 44
Parties
Applicant: Heiko Draht N.O.; Applicant: Marc Bradley Beginzel N.O.; Applicant: Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O.; Respondent: Thulani Joseph Manqele; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited; Respondent: Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2017
Case Number
29501/2014
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Following Late Delivery of Declaration and Notice of Bar
Outcome
Application for default judgment dismissed; costs awarded against applicants; leave granted to apply for condonation under Rule 27.
Judges
Kennedy Tsatsawane
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Notice of Bar, Rule 26, Rule 27, Late Delivery of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Notice of Bar Rule 26 Rule 27 Late Delivery of Pleadings

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heiko Draht N.O.

Applicant

Marc Bradley Beginzel N.O.

Applicant

Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O.

Applicant

Thulani Joseph Manqele

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Following Late Delivery of Declaration and Notice of Bar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were automatically barred from delivering their declaration after failing to comply with the time period prescribed in a court order.
  2. 2 Whether a notice of bar is required before a party is barred from delivering a declaration outside the time period set by a court order.
  3. 3 Whether the application for default judgment is properly before the court given the late delivery of the declaration without condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 26 does not apply to time periods prescribed by a court order, but only to those set out in the Rules or extended in terms of the Rules. Therefore, the applicants were not automatically barred from delivering their declaration for failing to comply with the time period in the court order. However, since the applicants delivered their declaration out of time and did not seek condonation or an extension under Rule 27, the application for default judgment was not properly before the court. The notice of bar issued by the applicants was set aside, the application for default judgment was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants. The applicants were...

Court Disposition

Application for default judgment dismissed; costs awarded against applicants; leave granted to apply for condonation under Rule 27.

Orders

  • The applicants' notice of bar dated 2 March 2016 is set aside.
  • The application for default judgment is dismissed.