Oertel v Kok and Others (097739/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 93 (31 January 2025)

Oertel v Kok and Others (097739/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 93 (31 January 2025)

The court found that while the respondents' notice to remove cause of complaint was not delivered within the time prescribed by rule 23(1)(a), its filing within the period allotted in the notice of bar was not irregular. However, it was not a proper response to the notice of bar, as a proper response would have been...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 93
Parties
Applicant: Simona Oertel; Respondent: Willem Kok; Respondent: Marne Grobler; Respondent: DDD Diesel Deliveries Proprietary Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Case Number
097739/23
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Setting Aside Irregular Steps, Bar, and Condonation
Outcome
Application dismissed; bar uplifted and condonation granted for late filing of exception. Costs awarded against respondents.
Judges
N G M Mazibuko
Legal Topics
Notice of Bar, Exception Procedure, Condonation, Irregular Steps, Upliftment of Bar
Civil Procedure Notice of Bar Exception Procedure Condonation Irregular Steps Upliftment of Bar

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simona Oertel

Applicant

Willem Kok

Respondent

Marne Grobler

Respondent

DDD Diesel Deliveries Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Setting Aside Irregular Steps, Bar, and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' notice to remove cause of complaint and exception were irregular steps and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are ipso facto barred from defending the action as of 10 November 2023.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the exception and upliftment of the bar should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the respondents' notice to remove cause of complaint was not delivered within the time prescribed by rule 23(1)(a), its filing within the period allotted in the notice of bar was not irregular. However, it was not a proper response to the notice of bar, as a proper response would have been a plea or the exception itself. The respondents did not seek condonation for the late filing of the exception at the time, and thus were technically under bar from 10 November 2023. Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion to grant condonation for the late filing of the exception and uplifted the bar, finding that the respondents should be afforded an opportunity to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; bar uplifted and condonation granted for late filing of exception. Costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

  • The applicant’s point in limine regarding respondents’ late filing of their answering affidavit is dismissed.
  • The application regarding irregularity is dismissed.