Mjila and Partners Inc and Another v Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley (1264/23) [2025] ZANCHC 71 (8 August 2025)

Mjila and Partners Inc and Another v Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley (1264/23) [2025] ZANCHC 71 (8 August 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a proper and sufficient explanation for their default in filing a plea, both before and after the second notice of bar. The applicants confused the events surrounding the first and second notices of bar and did not clarify the alleged oversight or their belief...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZANCHC 71
Parties
Applicant: Mjila and Partners Inc; Applicant: Mrs. Anna Mjila N.O.; Respondent: Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2025
Case Number
1264/23
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Uplifting of Bar and Condonation for Late Filing of Plea
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Olivier AJ
Legal Topics
Uplifting of Bar, Condonation for Late Plea, Uniform Rules of Court, Good Cause Requirement
Civil Procedure Uplifting of Bar Condonation for Late Plea Uniform Rules of Court Good Cause Requirement

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mjila and Partners Inc

Applicant

Mrs. Anna Mjila N.O.

Applicant

Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Uplifting of Bar and Condonation for Late Filing of Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bar preventing the applicants from filing their plea should be uplifted.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the plea should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a proper and sufficient explanation for their default in filing a plea, both before and after the second notice of bar. The applicants confused the events surrounding the first and second notices of bar and did not clarify the alleged oversight or their belief that they were still engaged in Rule 28 proceedings. The correspondence relied upon did not substantiate their explanation. The applicants did not provide details of their intended defence or annex a draft plea, making it impossible for the court to assess prospects of success. The court held that the applicants' conduct was reckless and ill-considered, and that they failed to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The costs are to be taxed on scale 'B' as set out in Rule 69(7) read with Rule 67A(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court.