Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Malgas and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (73418/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 185 (21 February 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 SC

Alfred Disco Biyela

Plaintiff Counsel: Adv L de Klerk SC

Boswell John Mhlongo

Plaintiff Counsel: Adv L de Klerk SC

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Defendant Counsel: Adv G Shakoane SC

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Trial / Rule 30/30 a Application During Trial

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 02

    Uniform Rule 33(4)

    The separation of issues under Rule 33(4) must be respected; applications inconsistent with such orders are irregular.

  3. 03

    Uniform Rule 6(12)(a)

    Condonation applications must comply with procedural requirements, including urgency under Rule 6(12)(a), if brought as urgent.

  4. 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.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Judgment

[2024] ZAGPPHC 185

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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Makhwelo v Minister of Safety and Security 2017 (1) SA 274 (GJ)

Case cited

Uniform Rule 30

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Uniform Rule 30A

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Uniform Rule 33(4)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Uniform Rule 6(12)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.