S v Thupuli (504/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 67 (7 March 2022)

S v Thupuli (504/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 67 (7 March 2022)

The court held that while it is good practice for attorneys to indicate their right of appearance in pleadings, Rule 18(1) does not require that the summons must expressly state that the attorney signing has such right. Both attorneys involved had valid certificates under the Right of Appearance Act at the time the summons was issued. The omission to reflect this right in the summons does not render the summons defective. The respondent should have addressed the applicant's concerns regarding the signatures, and the notice of bar should be uplifted to allow the applicant an opportunity to file further pleadings. The application to declare the summons defective was dismissed, but the...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 67
Parties
Applicant: Itumeleng Victoria Moloi; Respondent: The Municipal Manager, Fezile Dabi District Municipality; Plaintiff: District Municipality; Defendant: Anna Magagudi Olifant; Defendant: Itumeleng Victoria Moloi
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2022
Case Number
504/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; notice of bar uplifted; applicant granted leave to file further pleadings; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Uniform Rule 18, Right of Appearance Act, Irregular Step, Notice of Bar, Condonation, Pleading Signature Requirements
Civil Procedure Uniform Rule 18 Right of Appearance Act Irregular Step Notice of Bar Condonation Pleading Signature Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Itumeleng Victoria Moloi

Applicant

The Municipal Manager, Fezile Dabi District Municipality

Respondent

District Municipality

Plaintiff

Anna Magagudi Olifant

Defendant

Itumeleng Victoria Moloi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the combined summons is defective for failing to indicate the attorney's right of appearance in terms of the Right of Appearance Act.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of bar delivered by the respondent constitutes an irregular step under Rule 30.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the notice of bar set aside and to file further pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while it is good practice for attorneys to indicate their right of appearance in pleadings, Rule 18(1) does not require that the summons must expressly state that the attorney signing has such right. Both attorneys involved had valid certificates under the Right of Appearance Act at the time the summons was issued. The omission to reflect this right in the summons does not render the summons defective. The respondent should have addressed the applicant's concerns regarding the signatures, and the notice of bar should be uplifted to allow the applicant an opportunity to file further pleadings. The application to declare the summons defective was dismissed, but the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; notice of bar uplifted; applicant granted leave to file further pleadings; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The notice of bar delivered on 5 August 2021 is uplifted.