Zwane v Sasol Technology and Another (91849/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1159 (9 October 2017)

Zwane v Sasol Technology and Another (91849/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1159 (9 October 2017)

The court found that Mr Zwane's particulars of claim did not comply with the requirements of Rule 18(3) and 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as they lacked distinct averments and failed to provide a clear and concise statement of material facts. While the court acknowledged Mr Zwane's status as a layperson, it held that condonation for such extensive non-compliance could not be granted, nor could general condonation for all future non-compliance. The court determined that Mr Zwane would not be prejudiced, as he was granted leave to amend his pleadings. Sasol's applications for condonation for late filing were granted, as the delays were reasonably explained and no prejudice would...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1159
Parties
Plaintiff: Petros Fakazi Zwane; Defendant: Sasol Technology; Defendant: Sasol Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 October 2017
Case Number
91849/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Applications and Pleadings
Outcome
Mr Zwane's condonation application is dismissed; Sasol's condonation applications are granted; Mr Zwane's application to declare Sasol's answering affidavit irregular is dismissed; the notice of bar is set aside; Mr Zwane is granted 30 days to amend his pleadings; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
RG Tolmay
Legal Topics
Condonation, Irregular Step, Notice of Bar, Pleading Requirements, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Condonation Irregular Step Notice of Bar Pleading Requirements Service of Process

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petros Fakazi Zwane

Plaintiff

Sasol Technology

Defendant

Sasol Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Applications and Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the plaintiff's non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court in drafting pleadings.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted to the defendants for late filing of answering affidavit and notice to remove cause of complaint.
  3. 3 Whether Sasol's answering affidavit dated 27 January 2016 should be declared irregular, improper, and unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Zwane's particulars of claim did not comply with the requirements of Rule 18(3) and 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as they lacked distinct averments and failed to provide a clear and concise statement of material facts. While the court acknowledged Mr Zwane's status as a layperson, it held that condonation for such extensive non-compliance could not be granted, nor could general condonation for all future non-compliance. The court determined that Mr Zwane would not be prejudiced, as he was granted leave to amend his pleadings. Sasol's applications for condonation for late filing were granted, as the delays were reasonably explained and no prejudice would...

Court Disposition

Mr Zwane's condonation application is dismissed; Sasol's condonation applications are granted; Mr Zwane's application to declare Sasol's answering affidavit irregular is dismissed; the notice of bar is set aside; Mr Zwane is granted 30 days to amend his pleadings; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The condonation application of Mr Zwane dated 15 November 2015 is dismissed, but service of documents on Mr Zwane may be effected by registered post and fax.
  • Sasol's applications for condonation for late filing of the notice to remove the cause of complaint and answering affidavit are granted.