Mokgogong v University of North West (314/16) [2017] ZANWHC 111 (8 June 2017)

Mokgogong v University of North West (314/16) [2017] ZANWHC 111 (8 June 2017)

The court held that the defence of res judicata is a matter of substance and not form, and therefore cannot be raised as an irregular step under rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court. Rule 30 is intended to address procedural irregularities arising from the use of the Rules of Court, not substantive defences such as res judicata. The proper procedure for raising such a defence is by way of special plea, not through an application under rule 30. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant's notice in terms of rule 23(1) was not out of time, as the plaintiff had not served a notice of bar after the previous exception was dismissed. Accordingly, the plaintiff's application under rule 30...

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 111
Parties
Plaintiff: Johny Mokgokong; Defendant: University of North West
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2017
Case Number
314/16
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Alleged Irregular Step Under Rule 30
Outcome
Plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed with costs.
Judges
N Gutta
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Irregular Step, Res Judicata, Exception Procedure, Notice of Bar, Uniform Rules of Court
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Irregular Step Res Judicata Exception Procedure Notice of Bar Uniform Rules of Court

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johny Mokgokong

Plaintiff

University of North West

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Alleged Irregular Step Under Rule 30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of res judicata can be raised as an irregular step under rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's notice in terms of rule 23(1) was filed out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defence of res judicata is a matter of substance and not form, and therefore cannot be raised as an irregular step under rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court. Rule 30 is intended to address procedural irregularities arising from the use of the Rules of Court, not substantive defences such as res judicata. The proper procedure for raising such a defence is by way of special plea, not through an application under rule 30. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant's notice in terms of rule 23(1) was not out of time, as the plaintiff had not served a notice of bar after the previous exception was dismissed. Accordingly, the plaintiff's application under rule 30...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed with costs.