Mavis v United National Transport Union (2022/039818) [2025] ZAGPJHC 375 (3 April 2025)

Mavis v United National Transport Union (2022/039818) [2025] ZAGPJHC 375 (3 April 2025)

The court held that Rule 23 and Rule 30 are procedural rules governing notices, not applications, and therefore the rules applicable to applications, including dies non, do not apply. The applicant's contention that dies non should be considered in calculating the response period to the notice to remove the cause of complaint was rejected. The respondent was entitled to proceed with its exception after the applicant failed to respond. Furthermore, the proposed amendment to the particulars of claim would introduce a new cause of action and render the pleading vague and embarrassing, justifying the respondent's objection. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 375
Parties
Applicant: Baloyi Miholti Mavis; Respondent: United National Transport Union
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 April 2025
Case Number
2022/039818
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Amendment and Exception; Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on scale B.
Judges
E Raubenheimer
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Amendment of Particulars of Claim, Dies Non, Trade Union Duties, Contractual Damages
Civil Procedure Labour Law Exception Procedure Amendment of Particulars of Claim Dies Non Trade Union Duties Contractual Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baloyi Miholti Mavis

Applicant

United National Transport Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Amendment and Exception; Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dies non applies to notices under Rule 23(1) and Rule 30(2)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to effect the proposed amendments to the particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 23 and Rule 30 are procedural rules governing notices, not applications, and therefore the rules applicable to applications, including dies non, do not apply. The applicant's contention that dies non should be considered in calculating the response period to the notice to remove the cause of complaint was rejected. The respondent was entitled to proceed with its exception after the applicant failed to respond. Furthermore, the proposed amendment to the particulars of claim would introduce a new cause of action and render the pleading vague and embarrassing, justifying the respondent's objection. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on scale B.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on scale B.