South Africa Case Law

Mjila and Partners Inc and Another v Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley (1264/23)

Mjila and Partners Inc and Another v Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley (1264/23) [2025] ZANCHC 71 (8 August 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1264/23

Judge

Olivier AJ

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a proper and sufficient explanation for their default in filing a plea, both before and after the second notice of bar. The applicants confused the events surrounding the first and second notices of bar and did not clarify the alleged oversight or their belief that they were still engaged in Rule 28 proceedings. The correspondence relied upon did not substantiate their explanation. The applicants did not provide details of their intended defence or annex a draft plea, making it impossible for the court to assess prospects of success. The c…

Source excerpt

• Uplifting Of Bar
• Condonation For Late Plea
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Good Cause Requirement

Magdalene Georgiannis Marais Attorneys and Others v Indonet (Pty) Ltd TA One Fifty Capital (A2024/001078)

Magdalene Georgiannis Marais Attorneys and Others v Indonet (Pty) Ltd TA One Fifty Capital (A2024/001078) [2025] ZAGPJHC 671 (13 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2024/001078

Judges

M V Noko, Ntlama-Makhanya

The High Court held that an order uplifting a bar was interlocutory and not appealable, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

• Upliftment Of Bar
• Condonation For Late Plea
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Bona Fide Defence
• Magistrates Court Rules
• Civil-procedure

Minister of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform v Marolien CC and Others

Minister of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform v Marolien CC and Others [2025] ZAGPJHC 329 (27 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/40376

Judge

E Dreyer

The High Court uplifted a bar and condoned a plea filed one day late, finding a bona fide defence and that justice favoured allowing the matter to proceed.

• Removal Of Bar
• Condonation For Late Plea
• Rule 27
• Movable Property Dispute
• Agreement Of Sale
• Removal-of-bar

Greyling v Kraalpunt Boerdery CC and Another (3818/2023)

Greyling v Kraalpunt Boerdery CC and Another (3818/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 209 (11 July 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3818/2023

Judge

T.L. Manye

The High Court lifted a bar against a defendant who filed a late plea, accepting the delay was due to legal representatives’ disorganization and awarding costs against the applicant.

• Removal Of Bar
• Condonation For Late Plea
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Good Cause Requirement
• Removal-of-bar
• Condonation

Mamabolo and Another v Morema (2354/2016)

Mamabolo and Another v Morema (2354/2016) [2018] ZALMPPHC 49 (23 August 2018)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2354/2016

Judge

MF. Kganyago

The High Court rescinded a default judgment after finding the applicants had a reasonable explanation for missing deadlines and a bona fide defence on damages.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Condonation For Late Plea
• Negligence Of Attorney
• Loss Of Income Claim
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against State
• Rescission-of-default-judgment

Securiforce v Ruiters (CA&R 64/2010)

Securiforce v Ruiters (CA&R 64/2010) [2011] ZANCHC 36; 2012 (4) SA 252 (NCK) (2 December 2011)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 64/2010

Judges

Kgomo, Pakati

Appeal dismissed where the appellant failed to comply with procedure, showed no bona fide defence, and did not prove the damages award was excessive.

• Condonation For Late Plea
• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Malicious Prosecution
• Quantification Of Damages

Koo v Breedt (12166/02)

Koo v Breedt (12166/02) [2003] ZAGPHC 10 (8 October 2003)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

12166/02

Judge

Willis

The court removed a bar to late pleas on most counterclaims, but refused relief for the fourth counterclaim and granted default judgment for R260,000 plus interest.

• Removal Of Bar
• Condonation For Late Plea
• Default Judgment
• Counterclaim Defence
• Civil-procedure
• Removal-of-bar

Deetlefs and Another v Volkskas Ltd. (84/87)

Deetlefs and Another v Volkskas Ltd. (84/87) [1988] ZASCA 52 (20 May 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

84/87

Judges

Jansen, Hoexter, Nestadt, Kumleben, Viljoen

Appeal against refusal of condonation for a late plea failed; the court held the delay explanation was unsatisfactory and the defence had minimal prospects.

• Condonation For Late Plea
• Default Judgment
• Suretyship Agreement
• Good Cause Requirement
• Condonation-for-late-plea
• Default-judgment