Ketse and Another v Motlhabedi (M03/2021) [2024] ZANWHC 10 (18 January 2024)

Ketse and Another v Motlhabedi (M03/2021) [2024] ZANWHC 10 (18 January 2024)

The court held that the filing of an exception in response to a Notice of Bar interrupts the dies induciae of the bar. Upon withdrawal of the exception, the original Notice of Bar cannot be revived, and a second Notice of Bar is required to compel the defendants to plead. The procedural life of the original Notice of Bar ended with the filing of the exception, and the subsequent withdrawal did not automatically place the defendants under bar. The court found that the plaintiff was required to serve a second Notice of Bar within five days of the amended order. Costs were awarded to follow the result, with no deviation from the usual order.

Citation
[2024] ZANWHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Kgotla Jacob Ketse; Applicant: K.J Ketse Attorneys; Respondent: Nathaniel Karabo Motlhabedi
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2024
Case Number
M03/2021
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / Reasons for Order Delivered; Application for Declarator Adjudicated
Outcome
The respondent is ordered to deliver a Notice of Bar on the applicants within five days of this order.
Judges
Reddy
Legal Topics
Notice of Bar, Exception Procedure, Default Judgment, Rule 23, Rule 26
Civil Procedure Notice of Bar Exception Procedure Default Judgment Rule 23 Rule 26

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgotla Jacob Ketse

Applicant

K.J Ketse Attorneys

Applicant

Nathaniel Karabo Motlhabedi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / Reasons for Order Delivered; Application for Declarator Adjudicated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were under bar following the withdrawal of their exception.
  2. 2 Whether a second Notice of Bar was required after the withdrawal of the exception.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' exception interrupted the dies induciae of the original Notice of Bar.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the filing of an exception in response to a Notice of Bar interrupts the dies induciae of the bar. Upon withdrawal of the exception, the original Notice of Bar cannot be revived, and a second Notice of Bar is required to compel the defendants to plead. The procedural life of the original Notice of Bar ended with the filing of the exception, and the subsequent withdrawal did not automatically place the defendants under bar. The court found that the plaintiff was required to serve a second Notice of Bar within five days of the amended order. Costs were awarded to follow the result, with no deviation from the usual order.

Court Disposition

The respondent is ordered to deliver a Notice of Bar on the applicants within five days of this order.

Orders

  • The respondent is to deliver a Notice of Bar on the applicants within five (5) days of this order.