MCC Contracts (Pty) Ltd v Coertzen and Others (625/96) [1998] ZASCA 68; 1998 (4) SA 1046 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 503 (A) (18 September 1998)

MCC Contracts (Pty) Ltd v Coertzen and Others (625/96) [1998] ZASCA 68; 1998 (4) SA 1046 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 503 (A) (18 September 1998)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the pleadings between the defendant and SA Eagle were not yet closed when the third party notice was served on MCC. The phrase 'in connection with which' in Rule 13(3)(a) refers to all pleadings between parties to the action, not just those between plaintiff and defendant. The rule is intended to consolidate all related issues in a single action and avoid multiple proceedings. Since SA Eagle had become a party to the action, the pleadings between defendant and SA Eagle were pleadings 'in the action'. Therefore, service of the third party notice on MCC was properly effected before the close of pleadings, and leave of court was not required. The...

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 68
Parties
Appellant: MCC Contracts (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Coertzen; Respondent: SA Eagle
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 1998
Case Number
625/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orange Free State Provincial Division on Rule 30 Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; third party notice was regular and properly served.
Judges
Howie JA
Legal Topics
Third Party Procedure, Rule 13 Interpretation, Irregular Proceedings, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Third Party Procedure Rule 13 Interpretation Irregular Proceedings Joinder of Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MCC Contracts (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Coertzen

Respondent

SA Eagle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orange Free State Provincial Division on Rule 30 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave of court was required for service of a second third party notice under Rule 13(3)(a).
  2. 2 Whether pleadings between defendant and first third party were closed at the time of service on the second third party.
  3. 3 Whether the third party notice served on MCC was an irregular proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the pleadings between the defendant and SA Eagle were not yet closed when the third party notice was served on MCC. The phrase 'in connection with which' in Rule 13(3)(a) refers to all pleadings between parties to the action, not just those between plaintiff and defendant. The rule is intended to consolidate all related issues in a single action and avoid multiple proceedings. Since SA Eagle had become a party to the action, the pleadings between defendant and SA Eagle were pleadings 'in the action'. Therefore, service of the third party notice on MCC was properly effected before the close of pleadings, and leave of court was not required. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; third party notice was regular and properly served.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The third party notice served on MCC Contracts (Pty) Ltd is upheld as regular.