Mokgokong v University of North West (314/16) [2017] ZANWHC 22 (8 June 2017)

Mokgokong v University of North West (314/16) [2017] ZANWHC 22 (8 June 2017)

The court held that Rule 30 is intended to address procedural irregularities of form arising from the use of the Uniform Rules of Court, not substantive defences such as res judicata. The defence of res judicata must be raised by way of special plea and not as an irregular step under Rule 30. The previous exception was dismissed on a procedural point and not on the merits, so res judicata does not apply. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not serve a notice of bar after the dismissal of the previous exception, and therefore cannot object to the timing of the defendant's notice in terms of Rule 23(1). The plaintiff's application under Rule 30 is without merit and is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 22
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 / Rule 30 Application to Set Aside Alleged Irregular Step
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
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Irregular Step Res Judicata Exception Procedure Notice of Bar

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johny Mokgokong

Plaintiff

University of North West

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

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 Rule 30 is intended to address procedural irregularities of form arising from the use of the Uniform Rules of Court, not substantive defences such as res judicata. The defence of res judicata must be raised by way of special plea and not as an irregular step under Rule 30. The previous exception was dismissed on a procedural point and not on the merits, so res judicata does not apply. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not serve a notice of bar after the dismissal of the previous exception, and therefore cannot object to the timing of the defendant's notice in terms of Rule 23(1). The plaintiff's application under Rule 30 is without merit and is dismissed with costs.

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.