BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Doola (2021-39269) [2025] ZAGPPHC 36; [2025] 2 All SA 107 (GP) (20 January 2025)

BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Doola (2021-39269) [2025] ZAGPPHC 36; [2025] 2 All SA 107 (GP) (20 January 2025)

The court held that a notice of intention to amend under rule 28(1) does not constitute an irregular step as contemplated by rule 30(1). Such a notice is merely a procedural notification and does not advance the proceedings or prejudicially affect the rights of the opposing party. The court found that only the actual amendment, once effected, could potentially have such an impact, and the rules provide mechanisms for objection at that stage. The applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the notice itself. Accordingly, the application to set aside the notice as an irregular step was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 36
Parties
Applicant: BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Riyadh Doola
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 January 2025
Case Number
2021-39269
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Notice as Irregular Step
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
A J Le Grange
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 28 Amendment, Rule 30 Irregular Step, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28 Amendment Rule 30 Irregular Step Procedural Fairness

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Riyadh Doola

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Notice as Irregular Step

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a notice of intention to amend an exception under rule 28(1) constitutes an irregular step as contemplated by rule 30(1).
  2. 2 Whether the filing of such a notice prejudicially affects the rights of the opposing party in the future conduct of litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a notice of intention to amend under rule 28(1) does not constitute an irregular step as contemplated by rule 30(1). Such a notice is merely a procedural notification and does not advance the proceedings or prejudicially affect the rights of the opposing party. The court found that only the actual amendment, once effected, could potentially have such an impact, and the rules provide mechanisms for objection at that stage. The applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the notice itself. Accordingly, the application to set aside the notice as an irregular step was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the application.