Pinro Building & Steel Merchants (edms) bpk v Yawa (459/1998) [2002] ZAWCHC 68; [2003] 1 All SA 318 (C) (29 November 2002)

Pinro Building & Steel Merchants (edms) bpk v Yawa (459/1998) [2002] ZAWCHC 68; [2003] 1 All SA 318 (C) (29 November 2002)

The court found that both the plaintiff's initial demand for a plea and the defendant's first plea were irregular steps in the proceedings. The first plea did not comply with the requirements of Rule 22(2) as it failed to address the material facts alleged in the declaration. The court held that irregularities in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ZAWCHC 68
Parties
Plaintiff: Pinro Building & Steel Merchants (edms) bpk; Defendant: Cingeni Peter Yawa
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2002
Case Number
459/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Striking Out and Counter Application for Condonation
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed; defendant's counter-application granted; first plea struck out; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs.
Judges
HJ Erasmus
Legal Topics
Irregular Proceedings, Striking Out, Pleadings, Condonation, Nullity Vs Irregularity
Civil Procedure Irregular Proceedings Striking Out Pleadings Condonation Nullity Vs Irregularity

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pinro Building & Steel Merchants (edms) bpk

Plaintiff

Cingeni Peter Yawa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Striking Out and Counter Application for Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's first plea constitutes a nullity or an irregular step in the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's application to strike out the defendant's second plea should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counter-application to strike out the first plea should succeed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the plaintiff's initial demand for a plea and the defendant's first plea were irregular steps in the proceedings. The first plea did not comply with the requirements of Rule 22(2) as it failed to address the material facts alleged in the declaration. The court held that irregularities in the proceedings may be condoned or struck out at the court's discretion. In this case, the proper course was to strike out the first plea as an irregular step, thereby restoring order to the proceedings. The plaintiff's application to strike out the second plea was dismissed, and the defendant's counter-application to strike out the first plea was granted. The plaintiff was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed; defendant's counter-application granted; first plea struck out; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application is dismissed.
  • The first plea delivered on 28 July 1999 is struck out as an irregular step.