SB v Storage Technology Services (Pty) Ltd (15550/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 210 (21 October 2021)
The court found that the re-delivery of the exception by the respondent on 20 May 2021 was an irregular step, as it was not delivered within the period allowed for filing any subsequent pleading in terms of rule 23(1). There is no procedural mechanism to cure this defect without an application for condonation, which was not brought. The April exception, delivered on 1 April 2021, remains extant until struck out, set aside, dismissed, or upheld, as an exception is a pleading and does not automatically lapse if not set down for hearing. The applicant's notice of bar was set aside as it was delivered after a pleading had already been filed. On the merits, the respondent's exception to the...
- Citation
- [2021] ZAWCHC 210
- Parties
- Applicant: SB; Respondent: Storage Technology Services (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: SB; Defendant: Alfredo Witlouw; Defendant: Storage Technology Services (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2021
- Case Number
- 15550/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Exception and Rule 30 Application; Interlocutory Stage Prior to Plea
- Outcome
- The respondent's exception delivered on 20 May 2021 is set aside as an irregular step. The applicant's notice of bar delivered on 21 May 2021 is set aside. The respondent's exception delivered on 1 April 2021 is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to deliver its plea within 20 court days. The respondent is to pay...
- Judges
- J Cloete
- Legal Topics
- Exceptions to Pleadings, Vicarious Liability, Sexual Assault, Rule 23 Uniform Rules, Irregular Steps, Psychiatric Injury
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SB
Applicant
Storage Technology Services (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
SB
Plaintiff
Alfredo Witlouw
Defendant
Storage Technology Services (Pty) Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Exception and Rule 30 Application; Interlocutory Stage Prior to Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the re-delivery of the exception by the respondent on 20 May 2021 constitutes an irregular step under rule 30.
- 2 Whether the applicant's notice of bar delivered on 21 May 2021 is a regular step.
- 3 Whether the April exception delivered by the respondent remains extant and should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the re-delivery of the exception by the respondent on 20 May 2021 was an irregular step, as it was not delivered within the period allowed for filing any subsequent pleading in terms of rule 23(1). There is no procedural mechanism to cure this defect without an application for condonation, which was not brought. The April exception, delivered on 1 April 2021, remains extant until struck out, set aside, dismissed, or upheld, as an exception is a pleading and does not automatically lapse if not set down for hearing. The applicant's notice of bar was set aside as it was delivered after a pleading had already been filed. On the merits, the respondent's exception to the...
Court Disposition
The respondent's exception delivered on 20 May 2021 is set aside as an irregular step. The applicant's notice of bar delivered on 21 May 2021 is set aside. The respondent's exception delivered on 1 April 2021 is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to deliver its plea within 20 court days. The respondent is to pay...
Orders
- The exception delivered by the respondent (second defendant) on 20 May 2021 is set aside as an irregular step in terms of uniform rule 30.
- The notice of bar delivered by the applicant (plaintiff) on 21 May 2021 is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment