New Integrated Credit Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Local Municipality (2321/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 42 (26 February 2015)

New Integrated Credit Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Local Municipality (2321/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 42 (26 February 2015)

The court held that the respondent's exception did not constitute an irregular step under Rule 30(1) because non-compliance with time limits for filing pleadings is not an irregular step in the absence of a notice of bar, as established in Tyulu v Southern Insurance Association Ltd. The applicant should have sought remedy under Rule 30A for non-compliance with the Rules, not Rule 30(1). The exception was properly signed by an attorney with right of appearance, and the lack of a second signature was a formalistic and unsubstantial objection. The prayer for relief in the exception, when read in context, was not bad in law or incompetent. Both parties contributed to delays and procedural...

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 42
Parties
Applicant: New Integrated Credit Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mangaung Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2015
Case Number
2321/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Exception Under Rule 30(1)
Outcome
Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
S Naidoo
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Irregular Step, Exception Procedure, Notice of Bar, Right of Appearance, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Irregular Step Exception Procedure Notice of Bar Right of Appearance Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Integrated Credit Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mangaung Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Exception Under Rule 30(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's exception to the applicant's particulars of claim constituted an irregular step under Rule 30(1).
  2. 2 Whether the exception was invalid due to late filing and lack of proper signature in terms of Rule 18(1) and Section 4(2) of Act 62/1995.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought in the exception was bad in law and incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent's exception did not constitute an irregular step under Rule 30(1) because non-compliance with time limits for filing pleadings is not an irregular step in the absence of a notice of bar, as established in Tyulu v Southern Insurance Association Ltd. The applicant should have sought remedy under Rule 30A for non-compliance with the Rules, not Rule 30(1). The exception was properly signed by an attorney with right of appearance, and the lack of a second signature was a formalistic and unsubstantial objection. The prayer for relief in the exception, when read in context, was not bad in law or incompetent. Both parties contributed to delays and procedural...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs in respect of this matter, including the costs of the hearing on 13 October 2014.