Stemela v MEC for Health,Eastern Cape Province (3962/17) [2019] ZAECMHC 4 (12 February 2019)

Stemela v MEC for Health,Eastern Cape Province (3962/17) [2019] ZAECMHC 4 (12 February 2019)

The court found that the order by agreement, which granted the respondent leave to file a plea, necessarily lifted the bar that had previously been in place. The applicant's argument that the bar remained operative was rejected, as the effect of the order was to allow the respondent to take the next procedural step. The court held that the rules permit the filing of an exception as a pleading and that the respondent was not restricted to filing only a plea. The reasoning in Landmark Mthatha was adopted, confirming that an exception is a valid procedural response and does not constitute an irregular step. Accordingly, the rule 30 application was dismissed as lacking merit.

Citation
[2019] ZAECMHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Nandiswa Stemela; Respondent: MEC for Health, Eastern Cape Province
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2019
Case Number
3962/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Irregular Step Under Rule 30
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Notice of Bar, Exception Procedure, Rule 30 Irregular Step, Pleading Sequence
Civil Procedure Notice of Bar Exception Procedure Rule 30 Irregular Step Pleading Sequence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nandiswa Stemela

Applicant

MEC for Health, Eastern Cape Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Irregular Step Under Rule 30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was under bar when the exception was filed.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to file an exception rather than a plea after the court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order by agreement, which granted the respondent leave to file a plea, necessarily lifted the bar that had previously been in place. The applicant's argument that the bar remained operative was rejected, as the effect of the order was to allow the respondent to take the next procedural step. The court held that the rules permit the filing of an exception as a pleading and that the respondent was not restricted to filing only a plea. The reasoning in Landmark Mthatha was adopted, confirming that an exception is a valid procedural response and does not constitute an irregular step. Accordingly, the rule 30 application was dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.