South Africa Case Law

Mabaza v Road Accident Fund (29534/2012)

Mabaza v Road Accident Fund (29534/2012) [2025] ZAGPJHC 519 (30 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

29534/2012

Judge

Windell

The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not prescribed because the final day for lodging the claim, 14 August 2011, fell on a Sunday. Applying the principles established in Road Accident Fund v Masindi and Gabuza v Road Accident Fund, the court found that prescription is extended to the next working day when the last day falls on a dies non. This interpretation aligns with constitutional imperatives and the protective purpose of the Road Accident Fund Act. The defendant's special plea of prescription was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff, including counsel's qualifying…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Dies Non
• Statutory Claims

Mavis v United National Transport Union (2022/039818)

Mavis v United National Transport Union (2022/039818) [2025] ZAGPJHC 375 (3 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/039818

Judge

E Raubenheimer

The High Court dismissed an application challenging an exception procedure and proposed amendment, holding that dies non does not apply to Rule 23 notices.

• Exception Procedure
• Amendment Of Particulars Of Claim
• Dies Non
• Trade Union Duties
• Contractual Damages
• Civil-procedure

Sugarberry Trading 239 CC t/a Degs Cellular v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (1503/2021)

Sugarberry Trading 239 CC t/a Degs Cellular v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (1503/2021) [2024] ZANWHC 309 (31 December 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1503/2021

Judge

Mfenyana

The court found that the interpretation of Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)(aa) as applied by the previous court was not sustainable. Specifically, the inclusion of founding affidavits for summary judgment applications within the ambit of Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)(aa) would lead to an absurd result, effectively preventing the filing of summary judgment applications between 21 December and 7 January each year. The court held that Rule 32 is a self-contained provision and that the applicant's arguments regarding the misapplication of Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)(aa) have merit. Furthermore, the court determined that there are r…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Interpretation Of Court Rules
• Summary Judgment
• Dies Non
• Condonation

Lotts v NMI Durban South Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Barons Belville (19455/2023)

Lotts v NMI Durban South Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Barons Belville (19455/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 268 (30 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19455/2023

Judge

R K Parker

The court found that the dies non period under Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)(aa) does not apply to summary judgment applications, which are governed by Rule 32. The plaintiff failed to file the summary judgment application within the prescribed 15-day period after delivery of the plea, and did not provide a substantive application for condonation with reasons for the delay. The absence of such an application is fatal, regardless of whether the defendant suffered prejudice. Furthermore, the relief sought by the plaintiff, including the return of the vehicle, delivery of a replacement, and damages, is not…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Condonation
• Dies Non
• Liquidated Claim
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Contractual Malperformance

Mobile Telephone Networks (PTY) LTD v Sugarberry Trading 239 CC (1503/2021)

Mobile Telephone Networks (PTY) LTD v Sugarberry Trading 239 CC (1503/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 3 (19 January 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1503/2021

Judge

K Mongale

The court dismissed a Rule 30 challenge to a summary judgment application, holding that dies non under Rule 6 applied and no prejudice was shown.

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Condonation
• Dies Non
• Interpretation Of Court Rules
• Summary-judgment

Leon JJ Van Rensburg Attorneys v Matlotlo Tranding (PTY) Ltd and Others (04956/2020)

Leon JJ Van Rensburg Attorneys v Matlotlo Tranding (PTY) Ltd and Others (04956/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 536 (15 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

04956/2020

Judge

Machaba

The High Court refused condonation for a late leave-to-appeal application and also refused leave to appeal, finding no sufficient cause or prospects of success.

• Condonation
• Leave To Appeal
• Dies Non
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Prospects Of Success
• Leave-to-appeal

Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v Sumeil (Pty) Ltd and Another (1403/2020)

Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v Sumeil (Pty) Ltd and Another (1403/2020) [2021] ZAKZPHC 74 (23 February 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1403/2020

Judge

Mossop AJ

The court found that the directives issued by the KZN Judge President suspending time limits during the COVID-19 lockdown were valid administrative acts and remained effective until set aside by a competent court. As a result, the plaintiff's notice of bar was delivered one day prematurely, since the dies non ended on 30 April 2020 and the defendants had until 7 May 2020 to file their plea. Without a valid notice of bar, the defendants were not under bar when they delivered their rule 23 notice, which was therefore properly delivered. The plaintiff's application to set aside the rule 23 notic…

Source excerpt

• Dies Non
• Notice Of Bar
• Rule 23 Exception
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Condonation
• Administrative Directives

Absa Bank Limited v Shikwambana (2370/15)

Absa Bank Limited v Shikwambana (2370/15) [2016] ZANCHC 3 (10 June 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2370/15

Judge

BM Pakati

The court found that the application for summary judgment was irregularly set down during dies non, contrary to the Uniform Rules. The respondent failed to establish the defence of lis pendens, as the pending litigation in the North Gauteng High Court involved different causes of action and the applicant was merely cited as an interested party. The respondent disclosed a bona fide defence by alleging latent defects in the vehicle and returning it to the applicant, who retained ownership and possession. The facts supported the respondent's defence under Rule 32, and the application for summary…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Bona Fide Defence
• Lis Pendens
• Dies Non

Saville Row (Pty) Ltd t/a Webbers Clothing and Footwear v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2742/07)

Saville Row (Pty) Ltd t/a Webbers Clothing and Footwear v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2742/07) [2013] ZALCJHB 27; (2013) 34 ILJ 2935 (LC) (8 March 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2742/07

Judge

Chetty

The applicant's rescission application was filed outside the 14-day period prescribed by CCMA Rule 32 and was not accompanied by an application for condonation. CCMA Rule 3(2) does not suspend the running of the time period for filing applications, but only excludes the last day if it falls within the dies non period. The commissioner was correct in dismissing the rescission application for lack of jurisdiction, as he could not consider the merits without condonation. The applicant's reliance on the dies non period was misplaced, and the absence of a condonation application was fatal to its c…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Rescission Of Award
• Ccma Rules
• Dies Non
• Gross Irregularity