First Rand Bank Limited v Masebelanga (16534/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 441 (8 May 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 441
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- N Manoim
- Case number
- 16534/2021
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- N Manoim
- Case number
- 16534/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the defendant's filing of two separate pleas, which were inconsistent on material allegations, constituted an irregular proceeding under Rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The absence of any explanation or opposition from the defendant reinforced the applicant's case. The order was granted directing the defendant to withdraw one of the two pleas within five days, with the dies for the next procedural step running from the date of service of the notice of withdrawal. Costs were reserved rather than awarded, as indicated in the manuscript on the order.
Court disposition
Order granted as prayed, directing the respondent to withdraw one of the two pleas within five days; costs reserved.
Orders
- The respondent is directed to withdraw one of the two pleas in this matter within five days of this order being granted.
- The dies in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court for the next step to be taken by the applicant runs from the date of service of the respondent's notice of withdrawal of her plea.
- Costs reserved.
02
Material facts
Parties
First Rand Bank Limited (FNB Division)
Applicant Counsel: R CarvalheiraKehumile Masebelanga
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Reasons for Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the filing of two separate pleas by the defendant constitutes an irregular proceeding under Rule 30.
- 02
Whether the defendant should be directed to withdraw one of the two pleas.
- 03
Whether costs should be awarded or reserved.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the defendant filed two separate pleas, dated 22 February 2023 and 8 July 2023, without any reference to the earlier plea in the latter. This created confusion and uncertainty as to which plea the applicant must address, especially since the pleas were inconsistent on material allegations. The applicant argued that this constituted an irregular proceeding under Rule 30 and sought an order directing the defendant to withdraw one plea and for costs.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file any answering affidavit or provide any explanation for the filing of two pleas. No appearance was made in court, and no reasons were advanced for the delay in requesting reasons for the order or for the failure to oppose the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 30
Filing multiple, inconsistent pleas in the same matter is irregular and prejudicial to the opposing party, as it creates uncertainty regarding the case to be met.
- 02
General principles of civil procedure
Where a party fails to explain or oppose an application alleging irregular proceedings, the court may grant relief as prayed, subject to its discretion on costs.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the defendant's filing of two separate pleas, which were inconsistent on material allegations, constituted an irregular proceeding under Rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The absence of any explanation or opposition from the defendant reinforced the applicant's case. The order was granted directing the defendant to withdraw one of the two pleas within five days, with the dies for the next procedural step running from the date of service of the notice of withdrawal. Costs were reserved rather than awarded, as indicated in the manuscript on the order.
Obiter and limits
- The confusion caused by filing two inconsistent pleas is illustrated by the contradictory positions taken on a central allegation in the plaintiff's case.
- There may be an explanation for the filing of two pleas, but none was provided by the defendant.
Court disposition
Order granted as prayed, directing the respondent to withdraw one of the two pleas within five days; costs reserved.
- The respondent is directed to withdraw one of the two pleas in this matter within five days of this order being granted.
- The dies in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court for the next step to be taken by the applicant runs from the date of service of the respondent's notice of withdrawal of her plea.
- Costs reserved.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 16534/2021
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO
8 May 2024
In the matter between:
FIRST RAND BANK LIMITED (FNB DIVISION) APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
and
KEHUMILE
MASEBELANGA
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
REASONS
MANOIM J:
[1] In this matter the defendant has asked for reasons for my order of 26 October 2023.
[2] The request has been made more than six months after I gave the order which was placed on Case lines. No explanation has been given for this delay in the request or an explanation why the defendant or anyone to represent her, did not appear in court if they were minded to oppose the application.
[3] From case lines I have reconstructed the history and what emerges is as follows:
[4] This matter was on the unopposed roll and there being no appearance for the defendant, although the defendant was served, I granted the order as prayed.
[5] That order states:
1. The Respondent is hereby directed to withdraw one of the two pleas in this matter within 5 days of this order being granted.
2. The dies in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court in order for the next step to be taken by the Applicant runs as from the date of service of the Respondent’s notice of withdrawal of her plea.
3. Costs reserved.
[6] The plaintiff’s application was brought in terms of Rule 30, The basis is that the defendant has served two pleas in this matter. The one is dated 22 February 2023 the other 8 July 2023. The latter plea does not make any reference to the earlier one. Although a notice to oppose is on record, dated 26 September 2023, no answering affidavit was filed.
[7] Accordingly, I only have the version of the plaintiff in this matter which is that the filing of two pleas is irregular. I agree. If there are two pleas the plaintiff does not know what case it has to meet. The pleas are also in some respects inconsistent. In the February plea, the contents of paragraph 3 of the particulars are denied and the plaintiff is put to the proof thereof. In the July plea, paragraph 3 is admitted. Paragraph 3 of the particulars is not a formality. It is a central allegation in the plaintiff’s case. I use this just as an example of the confusion filing two pleas causes.
[8] There might be an explanation for why this is happened. But no explanation was forthcoming from the defendant. Accordingly on the papers the plaintiff has made out a case of an irregular proceeding.
[9] The order I granted simply calls upon the defendant to indicate which plea is the correct one and to withdraw the other. However, I did not grant the costs order sought by the plaintiff, but instead, as appears from the manuscript on the order, costs were reserved.
N. MANOIM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION
JOHNANNESBURG
Date of Reasons: 08 May 2024
Appearances:
Counsel for the Applicant: R Carvalheira
Instructed by.
Hammond Pole Attorneys
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.