South Africa Case Law

Advertising Digital Services Pty (Ltd) v Standard Bank of South Africa and Another (71868/2017)

Advertising Digital Services Pty (Ltd) v Standard Bank of South Africa and Another (71868/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 625 (11 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

71868/2017

Judge

N V Khumalo

The court held that it is impermissible for a director or shareholder to represent a juristic person in legal proceedings unless leave of the court is sought and granted in exceptional circumstances. Mr Reynders, as sole director and shareholder of ADS, filed the notice of application for leave to appeal without being a legal practitioner and without seeking leave of the court. ADS was given an opportunity to cure the irregularity but failed to do so. The court found that Reynders's continued actions on behalf of ADS, including filing further documents, were in disregard of established legal…

Source excerpt

• Representation Of Juristic Persons
• Irregular Steps
• Leave To Appear
• Rule 30 Uniform Rules
• Exceptional Circumstances

Oertel v Kok and Others (097739/23)

Oertel v Kok and Others (097739/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 93 (31 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

097739/23

Judge

N G M Mazibuko

The court found that while the respondents' notice to remove cause of complaint was not delivered within the time prescribed by rule 23(1)(a), its filing within the period allotted in the notice of bar was not irregular. However, it was not a proper response to the notice of bar, as a proper response would have been a plea or the exception itself. The respondents did not seek condonation for the late filing of the exception at the time, and thus were technically under bar from 10 November 2023. Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion to grant condonation for the late filing of the ex…

Source excerpt

• Notice Of Bar
• Exception Procedure
• Condonation
• Irregular Steps
• Upliftment Of Bar

Rand Water Board and Another v Kariki Pipeline and Water Project (Pty) Ltd (A2023/080029 & 2017/2774)

Rand Water Board and Another v Kariki Pipeline and Water Project (Pty) Ltd (A2023/080029 & 2017/2774) [2024] ZAGPJHC 418 (22 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2023/080029 & 2017/2774

Judge

Wijnbeek

The court held that where the Supreme Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal to the Full Bench of the High Court, the obligation to provide security for costs under Uniform Rule 49(13) remains unless expressly waived by the respondent or released by the court. The SCA’s silence on the issue does not absolve the appellant from this obligation. The steps taken by Kariki in lodging the appeal record and filing heads of argument without providing security for costs were therefore irregular. The court declined to declare the appeal lapsed, as such relief was not sought in the notice of motion, but…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Uniform Rule 49 13
• Leave To Appeal
• Irregular Steps
• Superior Courts Act Section 17 2 B

Joubert v South African Legal Practice Council (5220/2022)

Joubert v South African Legal Practice Council (5220/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 70 (16 March 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5220/2022

Judge

Boonzaaier AJ

High Court interlocutory ruling on late Rule 7 authority challenge, condonation, and irregular-step complaints in an LPC disciplinary matter.

• Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Proceedings
• Condonation
• Authority To Act
• Rule 7 Challenge
• Irregular Steps
• Costs Punitive Scale

MEC For Health, The Kwazulu-Natal Province and Others v Medical Information Technology SA (Pty) Ltd (7535/19P)

MEC For Health, The Kwazulu-Natal Province and Others v Medical Information Technology SA (Pty) Ltd (7535/19P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 21 (8 June 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7535/19P

Judge

Koen

The High Court dismissed a rule 30 application to set aside a notice of amendment and amended pleadings as irregular steps, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Exception Procedure
• Irregular Steps
• Condonation
• Civil-procedure

Manenzhe Community v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others; Ramphabana Tribe and Others v Regional Land Claims Commissioner,Limpopo and Others (LCC144/2019; LCC48/2021)

Manenzhe Community v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others; Ramphabana Tribe and Others v Regional Land Claims Commissioner,Limpopo and Others (LCC144/2019; LCC48/2021) [2022] ZALCC 29 (30 March 2022)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC144/2019; LCC48/2021

Judge

SJ Cowen

The Court found that the withdrawal of the February 2021 referral was not irregular, as it was effected before a hearing date had been determined and thus complied with Rule 27. The referral and the application were distinct proceedings, and the withdrawal did not frustrate the directions or orders regulating the conduct of the application. The Court held that the amended gazette (GN 496 of 2021) was an attempt to comply with the court order and was empowered by section 11A of the Restitution Act. The question of whether the amended gazette fully complied with the order was not before the Cou…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Withdrawal Of Referral
• Irregular Steps
• Contempt Of Court
• Gazetting Of Land Claims
• Court Orders Compliance

Municipal Manager, Fezile Dabi District Municipality v Olifant and Another (504/2021)

Municipal Manager, Fezile Dabi District Municipality v Olifant and Another (504/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 46 (7 January 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

504/2021

Judge

Molitsoane

The High Court held that a combined summons is not defective merely because it does not show the signing attorney’s right of appearance, and uplifted the notice of bar.

• Uniform Rule 18
• Right Of Appearance Act
• Irregular Steps
• Notice Of Bar
• Pleading Signature Requirements
• Civil-procedure

SB v Storage Technology Services (Pty) Ltd (15550/2020)

SB v Storage Technology Services (Pty) Ltd (15550/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 210 (21 October 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15550/2020

Judge

J Cloete

High Court ruling on a re-delivered exception and notice of bar in a delict claim arising from alleged sexual assault and vicarious liability.

• Exceptions To Pleadings
• Vicarious Liability
• Sexual Assault
• Rule 23 Uniform Rules
• Irregular Steps
• Psychiatric Injury

Jonkers v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C295/2019)

Jonkers v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C295/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 40 (10 June 2021)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C295/2019

Judge

H Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court set aside irregular steps in a review application for failure to serve the record and notices on a respondent, and gave the applicant 20 court days to comply.

• Review Proceedings
• Irregular Steps
• Service Of Process
• Costs Order
• Labour-law
• Review-proceedings

Doovey v University of the Free State and Another (5668/2018)

Doovey v University of the Free State and Another (5668/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 45 (22 February 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5668/2018

Judge

Mathebula

The court held that the amendment of the plea by the respondent re-opened the pleadings, thereby permitting the respondent to file a third party notice without the need for leave of court under rule 13(3)(b). The court found that the filing of the third party notice did not constitute an irregular step, as the pleadings were properly re-opened by the amendment. The applicant's arguments regarding the validity and timing of the amendment were not relevant to the application before the court, which was solely concerned with whether the third party notice was irregular. The court further held th…

Source excerpt

• Third Party Proceedings
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Irregular Steps
• Rule 30 Application