Kubupay (Pty) Ltd v Mayibuye Transport Corporation (EL1203/2022) [2023] ZAECELLC 21 (27 July 2023)

Kubupay (Pty) Ltd v Mayibuye Transport Corporation (EL1203/2022) [2023] ZAECELLC 21 (27 July 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff's application to strike out was not the correct procedure for addressing the alleged irregularity in the defendant's plea. The plaintiff's complaint related to a failure to comply with Rule 18(6), which is an irregularity of form rather than substance. The appropriate remedy for such irregularity is to invoke Rule 30, not Rule 23(2). The court held that applications under Rule 23(2) are interlocutory and do not require affidavits, and that the plaintiff's application was procedurally competent. However, the court declined to make a finding on whether the defendant's plea complied with Rule 18(6), as it was unnecessary for the disposition of the...

Citation
[2023] ZAECELLC 21
Parties
Plaintiff: Kubupay (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Mayibuye Transport Corporation
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 July 2023
Case Number
EL1203/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application / Application to Strike Out Portions of Plea Under Rule 23(2)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S A Collett
Legal Topics
Striking Out Irrelevant Matter, Pleading Irregularity, Rule 23 Application, Rule 18 Compliance
Civil Procedure Striking Out Irrelevant Matter Pleading Irregularity Rule 23 Application Rule 18 Compliance

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

Parties

Kubupay (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Mayibuye Transport Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Application / Application to Strike Out Portions of Plea Under Rule 23(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application to strike out in terms of Rule 23(2) conforms with the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's plea complies with Rule 18(6).
  3. 3 Whether certain content in the defendant's plea ought to be struck out on the basis of irrelevance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's application to strike out was not the correct procedure for addressing the alleged irregularity in the defendant's plea. The plaintiff's complaint related to a failure to comply with Rule 18(6), which is an irregularity of form rather than substance. The appropriate remedy for such irregularity is to invoke Rule 30, not Rule 23(2). The court held that applications under Rule 23(2) are interlocutory and do not require affidavits, and that the plaintiff's application was procedurally competent. However, the court declined to make a finding on whether the defendant's plea complied with Rule 18(6), as it was unnecessary for the disposition of the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to strike out is dismissed with costs.