Letseng v Car Care Clinic Bloemfontein (4090/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 247 (17 June 2022)

Letseng v Car Care Clinic Bloemfontein (4090/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 247 (17 June 2022)

The court found that the combined summons filed with the registrar was complete and that it was not improbable that the last page containing the advocate's signature was served upon the defendant and subsequently misplaced. The court held that only the particulars of claim annexed to the summons need to be signed by an attorney with the right of appearance in the High Court or by an attorney and an advocate, and that it is sufficient compliance if the summons is signed by an attorney without such right and the particulars of claim are signed by both the attorney and the advocate. The court rejected the defendant's suspicion that the last page was surreptitiously annexed and declined to...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 247
Parties
Applicant: Lelokonyana Isaac Letseng; Respondent: Car Care Clinic Bloemfontein
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Case Number
4090/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application and Counter Application Under Rule 30
Outcome
Both the plaintiff's application and the defendant's counter-application in terms of Rule 30 are dismissed. Each party is ordered to pay his or its own legal costs.
Judges
M.S. Litheko
Legal Topics
Irregular Proceedings, Signing of Combined Summons, Right of Appearance, Rule 18 Compliance
Civil Procedure Irregular Proceedings Signing of Combined Summons Right of Appearance 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lelokonyana Isaac Letseng

Applicant

Car Care Clinic Bloemfontein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application and Counter Application Under Rule 30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's combined summons was irregular for not being signed in accordance with Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's notice in terms of Rule 30(2)(b) was itself an irregular step due to delivery after notice of intention to defend.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of the last page of the combined summons upon service invalidates the summons.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the combined summons filed with the registrar was complete and that it was not improbable that the last page containing the advocate's signature was served upon the defendant and subsequently misplaced. The court held that only the particulars of claim annexed to the summons need to be signed by an attorney with the right of appearance in the High Court or by an attorney and an advocate, and that it is sufficient compliance if the summons is signed by an attorney without such right and the particulars of claim are signed by both the attorney and the advocate. The court rejected the defendant's suspicion that the last page was surreptitiously annexed and declined to...

Court Disposition

Both the plaintiff's application and the defendant's counter-application in terms of Rule 30 are dismissed. Each party is ordered to pay his or its own legal costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed.
  • The defendant's counter-application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed.