K2012020306 (Pty) Ltd and Another v De Wet and Others (2022/009661) [2025] ZAGPJHC 292 (18 March 2025)

K2012020306 (Pty) Ltd and Another v De Wet and Others (2022/009661) [2025] ZAGPJHC 292 (18 March 2025)

The court found that Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court does not require an attorney with Right of Appearance in the High Court to sign pleadings twice. The defendants' plea was valid and effective, and no condonation was required for its late filing. The plaintiffs' application to strike out was dismissed as non-compliance with directives did not cause prejudice, and both parties sought condonation for procedural irregularities. Claims in the first action based on non-payment and success in arbitration were abandoned, but claims for misappropriation of trust funds, delict, and inducement to contract remained extant. Leave to amend the plea dated 31 March 2023 was granted, while...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 292
Parties
Plaintiff: K2012020306 (PTY) LTD; Plaintiff: Stuart Alan John Saunders; Defendant: Gert Lourens De Wet N.O.; Defendant: Martha Estelle Symes N.O.; Defendant: Marc Bradley BeginSel N.O.; Defendant: Senekal Simmonds Inc.; Defendant: Johannes Hendrik Senekal; Defendant: Ewan Ronald Simmonds; Defendant: Shaun Preston Hangone
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2025
Case Number
2022/009661
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Applications: Condonation, Amendment, Strike Out, Status/waiver Determination
Outcome
Claims in the first action based on non-payment and success in arbitration are abandoned except for costs; claims for misappropriation of funds, delict, and inducement to contract remain extant. The defendants' plea is valid and effective. Leave to amend the plea dated 31 March 2023 is granted; leave to amend the...
Judges
M V Noko
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Right of Appearance, Pleading Amendment, Misappropriation of Trust Funds, Breach of Contract, Inducement to Contract
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Delict Uniform Rules of Court Right of Appearance Pleading Amendment Misappropriation of Trust Funds Breach of Contract +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K2012020306 (PTY) LTD

Plaintiff

Stuart Alan John Saunders

Plaintiff

Gert Lourens De Wet N.O.

Defendant

Martha Estelle Symes N.O.

Defendant

Marc Bradley BeginSel N.O.

Defendant

Senekal Simmonds Inc.

Defendant

Johannes Hendrik Senekal

Defendant

Ewan Ronald Simmonds

Defendant

Shaun Preston Hangone

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Applications: Condonation, Amendment, Strike Out, Status/waiver Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' plea was defective for lack of dual signature under Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for late delivery of the rectified plea should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' application to strike out is competent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court does not require an attorney with Right of Appearance in the High Court to sign pleadings twice. The defendants' plea was valid and effective, and no condonation was required for its late filing. The plaintiffs' application to strike out was dismissed as non-compliance with directives did not cause prejudice, and both parties sought condonation for procedural irregularities. Claims in the first action based on non-payment and success in arbitration were abandoned, but claims for misappropriation of trust funds, delict, and inducement to contract remained extant. Leave to amend the plea dated 31 March 2023 was granted, while...

Court Disposition

Claims in the first action based on non-payment and success in arbitration are abandoned except for costs; claims for misappropriation of funds, delict, and inducement to contract remain extant. The defendants' plea is valid and effective. Leave to amend the plea dated 31 March 2023 is granted; leave to amend the...

Orders

  • Claims in the first action are abandoned except for costs and claims predicated on misappropriation of funds, delict, and inducement to contract.
  • The defendants' plea dated 26 September 2022 is declared valid and effective.