EMC Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Mopani District Municipality (3832/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 56 (15 July 2020)

EMC Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Mopani District Municipality (3832/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 56 (15 July 2020)

The court held that the respondent was barred from delivering any subsequent pleadings, including the notice of exception, after the expiry of the five-day period stipulated in the notice of bar. The definition of 'deliver' in rule 1 requires both service and filing with the registrar within the prescribed period. The respondent's notice of exception was filed with the registrar after the period had expired, rendering it an irregular step under rule 30. The counter-application by the respondent could not be entertained while the bar was operative, as any relief granted would be ineffectual. The court found no special circumstances to justify attorney and client costs and censured the...

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 56
Parties
Applicant: EMC Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mopani District Municipality
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2020
Case Number
3832/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Notice of Exception and Counter Application
Outcome
Application to set aside the notice of exception succeeded; counter-application dismissed.
Judges
GC Muller
Legal Topics
Notice of Bar, Rule 30 Irregular Step, Rule 35 Document Discovery, Exception Procedure, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Notice of Bar Rule 30 Irregular Step Rule 35 Document Discovery Exception Procedure Costs Award

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EMC Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mopani District Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Notice of Exception and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of exception delivered by the respondent was an irregular step under rule 30.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant/respondent was barred from delivering further pleadings after expiry of the notice of bar period.
  3. 3 Whether the counter-application by the respondent could be entertained while the bar was operative.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was barred from delivering any subsequent pleadings, including the notice of exception, after the expiry of the five-day period stipulated in the notice of bar. The definition of 'deliver' in rule 1 requires both service and filing with the registrar within the prescribed period. The respondent's notice of exception was filed with the registrar after the period had expired, rendering it an irregular step under rule 30. The counter-application by the respondent could not be entertained while the bar was operative, as any relief granted would be ineffectual. The court found no special circumstances to justify attorney and client costs and censured the...

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the notice of exception succeeded; counter-application dismissed.

Orders

  • The notice of exception delivered on 27 September 2019 is set aside as an irregular step taken by the respondent.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the rule 30 application, including the costs of two counsel.