Malgas and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (73418/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 185 (21 February 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 185
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Makhoba
- Case number
- 73418/2016
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Makhoba
- Case number
- 73418/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the condonation application brought by the plaintiffs was not envisaged by the parties or the court when the Rule 33(4) separation order was made. The application was inconsistent with the procedural framework established for the trial, which required the issue of prescription to be determined first, followed by non-compliance with section 3 of Act 40 of 2002 only if prescription was not upheld. The notice of motion for condonation was therefore irregular and improper. The court held that it would be procedurally incorrect to entertain the condonation application alongside the trial on the merits, and accordingly set aside the notice of motion as irregular. Costs were awarded against the applicants, including costs for two counsel.
Court disposition
The plaintiffs' condonation application was declared irregular and set aside. Costs were awarded against the applicants, including costs for two counsel.
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 13 February 2024 is declared to be irregular and is set aside.
- The applicants are to pay the costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
02
Material facts
Parties
Peter Thembekile Malgas
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv L de Klerk SCAlfred Disco Biyela
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv L de Klerk SCBoswell John Mhlongo
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv L de Klerk SCMinister of Justice and Correctional Services
Defendant Counsel: Adv G Shakoane SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Trial / Rule 30/30 a Application During Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiffs' application for condonation in terms of section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002 is procedurally regular during trial.
- 02
Whether the notice of motion dated 13 February 2024 constitutes an irregular proceeding under Rule 30/30A.
- 03
Whether the court can hear the condonation application in light of the prior Rule 33(4) separation order.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiffs argued that the urgency in bringing the condonation application was created by the defendant's conduct. They relied on Makhwelo v Minister of Safety and Security 2017 (1) SA 274 (GJ), submitting that the court retains discretion to hear the condonation application despite the procedural posture.
- Respondent
- The defendant contended that the matter was set down for trial, not for condonation. The condonation application was inconsistent with the Rule 33(4) separation order made on 15 February 2024. The notice of motion failed to comply with Rule 6(12)(a) regarding urgent applications. The defendant had consistently raised non-compliance with section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002 throughout the pleadings and in its plea.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rule 30
A court may declare proceedings irregular and set them aside if they are inconsistent with prior procedural orders and the rules of court.
- 02
Uniform Rule 33(4)
The separation of issues under Rule 33(4) must be respected; applications inconsistent with such orders are irregular.
- 03
Uniform Rule 6(12)(a)
Condonation applications must comply with procedural requirements, including urgency under Rule 6(12)(a), if brought as urgent.
- 04
Makhwelo v Minister of Safety and Security 2017 (1) SA 274 (GJ)
A court retains discretion to hear condonation applications, but only if procedurally regular and not in conflict with prior orders.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the condonation application brought by the plaintiffs was not envisaged by the parties or the court when the Rule 33(4) separation order was made. The application was inconsistent with the procedural framework established for the trial, which required the issue of prescription to be determined first, followed by non-compliance with section 3 of Act 40 of 2002 only if prescription was not upheld. The notice of motion for condonation was therefore irregular and improper. The court held that it would be procedurally incorrect to entertain the condonation application alongside the trial on the merits, and accordingly set aside the notice of motion as irregular. Costs were awarded against the applicants, including costs for two counsel.
Obiter and limits
- The urgency in the matter was arguably created by the defendant, but this does not excuse procedural irregularity.
- Applications for condonation must be brought in accordance with the procedural orders and rules governing the conduct of trial proceedings.
Court disposition
The plaintiffs' condonation application was declared irregular and set aside. Costs were awarded against the applicants, including costs for two counsel.
- The notice of motion dated 13 February 2024 is declared to be irregular and is set aside.
- The applicants are to pay the costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
THE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG HIGH COURT DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case no: 73418/2016
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO
REVISED
21 February 2024
In the matter between:
PETER
THEMBEKILE MALGAS First Plaintiff
ALFRED
DISCO BIYELA Second Plaintiff
BOSWELL
JOHN MHLONGO Third Plaintiff And
MINISTER
OF JUSTICE AND
CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES Defendant
JUDGMENT
i.r.o Rule 30 alternatively 30A read with Rule 6(12)a
MAKHOBA, J
[1] The applicants filed an application for condonation in terms of section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002 for any and all non-compliance by the applicants in terms of section 3 of Act 40 of 2002.
[2] The matter has been set down for trial from 12 February 2024 to 23 February 2024. On the first day of trial, the defendant raised a special plea of prescription which was dismissed with costs on of 15 February 2024.
[3] In terms of Rule 33(4) the court issued the following order "In terms of Rule 33(4) it is hereby ordered that:
1. The issue of prescription is separated from the issues of the Plaintiffs' non-compliance with Section 3 of Act 40 of 2002, merits and quantum.
2. The issue of prescription is determined first.
3. The issue of the Plaintiff's non-compliance with Section 3 of Act 40 of 2002, is to be heard second, in the event the plea of prescription is not upheld by the Court.
4. The issue of merits is to be heard third in the event of the Plea of prescription and the Plaintiffs' non-compliance with Section 3 of Act 40 of 2002 are both not upheld by the Court.
5. The issue of quantum is postponed sine die, pending the outcome of the merits issue above.
6. Costs of the Rule 33(4) separation of issues shall be costs in the course.
[4] On 13 February 2024, the plaintiffs delivered an application for condonation in terms of section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002.
[5] The defendants filed an answering affidavit as well as heads of argument. Despite filing these papers, the defendants on 19 February 2024 served the plaintiffs with a notice in terms of Rule 30, alternatively 30A read with Rule 6(12)(a).
[6] The defendant submitted the following in terms of Rule 30;
6.1 The matter was set down for trial and not for condonation.
6.2 The plaintiffs application is inconsistent with the order of the separation of the issues in the trial in terms of Rule 33 formally made by this court on the 15 February 2024.
6.3 The notice of motion fails to comply with Rule 6 (12) (a) regarding urgent application.
6.4 Through out the pleadings the defendant raised non-compliance with section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002.
6.5 The defendant in its plea raised non-compliance with section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002 by the plaintiffs.
[7] On behalf of the plaintiffs it is argued that, the urgency in this matter was created by the defendant.
[8] Counsel for the applicants referred the court to the decision in Makhwelo v Minister of Safety and Security 2017 (1) SA 274 (GJ). Counsel submitted that this court can still hear the application for condonation.
[9] In my view the application for condonation was never envisaged by the parties when they met with the Deputy Judge President and when the court made the order in terms of Rule 33(4).
[10] In addition it is my view that it will be improper and irregular for this court to make a ruling on the application condonation as well as hearing the trial on the merits.
[11] I make the following order;
11.1 The notice of motion dated 13 February 2024 is declared to be irregular and is set aside.
11.2 The applicants to pay the costs including cost consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
MAKHOBA
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD AND RESERVED JUDGMENT: 19 February 2024
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN ON: 21 February 2024
Appearances:
For the Plaintiffs: Adv L de Klerk SC with Adv D Thaldar (instructed by) Gildenhuys Malatji Incorporated
For the Defendant Adv G Shakoane SC with Adv D D Mosoma (instructed by) State Attorney Pretoria.
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.