South Africa Case Law

South Africa Municipal Workers Union v Mahlomoyane and Other (2023/014975)

South Africa Municipal Workers Union v Mahlomoyane and Other (2023/014975) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1175 (12 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/014975

Judge

Liebenberg

The court held that the late filing of amended pages under Rule 28(5) does not render the amendment a nullity, but may be considered irregular. However, the applicant failed to seek the setting aside of the amended pages and did not demonstrate any substantive prejudice resulting from the alleged irregularity. The application to set aside the notice of bar was therefore dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to deliver its plea within five days and pay the costs of the application. The court emphasized that procedural rules should not be rigidly enforced to the detriment of justice and the…

Source excerpt

• Rule 28 Amendment
• Notice Of Bar
• Irregular Proceedings
• Prejudice Requirement

Botha v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (2021/17543)

Botha v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (2021/17543) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1118 (1 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/17543

Judge

Esterhuizen

The High Court held that Rule 35(12) could be used in motion proceedings without prior Rule 35(13) directions, but dismissed both the Rule 30 and compel applications.

• Discovery In Motion Proceedings
• Rule 35 Application
• Irregular Step
• Relevance Of Documents
• Prejudice Requirement
• Rule-35-12

Nwaeze v Ndlovu and Others (2015/3010)

Nwaeze v Ndlovu and Others (2015/3010) [2023] ZAGPJHC 908 (14 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2015/3010

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court held that while there has been a significant and inexcusable delay in the prosecution of the respondents' application to set aside the sale-in-execution, the applicant failed to demonstrate legally relevant prejudice as required for dismissal for non-prosecution. The prejudice suffered by the applicant, such as inability to occupy the property and financial burdens, does not meet the threshold of prejudice that affects the ability to present a defence at trial. Furthermore, since the matter is brought on motion and all evidence is already before the court, the remedy of dismissal fo…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Non Prosecution
• Sale In Execution
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Prejudice Requirement
• Motion Proceedings

Elecmec Transmissions CC v Maluma Farming Enterprise 1938 (Pty) Ltd; In re: Enig (Pty) Ltd and Another v Elemec Transmissions CC (4750/2017)

Elecmec Transmissions CC v Maluma Farming Enterprise 1938 (Pty) Ltd; In re: Enig (Pty) Ltd and Another v Elemec Transmissions CC (4750/2017) [2023] ZALMPPHC 12 (16 March 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

4750/2017

Judge

R.P Mdhluli

The application to strike out the Respondent's claim was dismissed because the Applicant failed to prove non-compliance with the court order. The court found that the order had not been served on the Respondent, and therefore the time for compliance had not commenced. The Respondent had complied with the order to the extent possible, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice in the conduct of its defence. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 35(7) and held that the application was premature and unnecessary. The drastic remedy of striking out a claim is only justified in c…

Source excerpt

• Discovery
• Rule 35
• Non Compliance With Court Order
• Striking Out Claim
• Prejudice Requirement

Spagni v District Magistrate, Cape Town and Others (21791/2021)

Spagni v District Magistrate, Cape Town and Others (21791/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 98 (24 March 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21791/2021

Judge

P. S. van Zyl

The High Court held that a separate warrant-review application was not an irregular step under Rule 30(1) and dismissed the respondents’ objection with costs.

• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Review Application
• Prejudice Requirement
• Abuse Of Process
• Rule-30
• Irregular-step

Doornhoek Equestrian Estate Home Owners Association v Community Schemes Ombud Service and Others (32190/21)

Doornhoek Equestrian Estate Home Owners Association v Community Schemes Ombud Service and Others (32190/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 153 (8 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32190/21

Judge

NN Bam

The High Court set aside a late-filed Notice of Appeal and record as an irregular step under Rule 30, finding the respondents had been prejudiced.

• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Prejudice Requirement
• Community Schemes Ombud Service Act
• Appeal Procedure
• Condonation
• Stare Decisis

Viljoen v Iraklion Trading CC (2020/36177)

Viljoen v Iraklion Trading CC (2020/36177) [2022] ZAGPJHC 36 (20 January 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/36177

Judge

Thupaatlase

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 application to set aside a plea and counterclaim as irregular, finding no substantial prejudice and adequate compliance with the rules.

• Irregular Step
• Pleading Particularity
• Rule 30 Application
• Counterclaim Damages
• Prejudice Requirement
• Civil-procedure

Kayser N.O and Others v Rajkumar (2020/10390)

Kayser N.O and Others v Rajkumar (2020/10390) [2021] ZAGPJHC 638 (3 November 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/10390

Judge

E Molahlehi

High Court rule 30 application dismissed after finding no proven prejudice, no irregular step in withdrawing a plea and counterclaim, and no condonation sought.

• Irregular Step
• Withdrawal Of Plea
• Rule 30 Application
• Prejudice Requirement
• Civil-procedure
• Rule-30

Ioannides N.O and Another v Master of the High Court and Others (74/2020)

Ioannides N.O and Another v Master of the High Court and Others (74/2020) [2020] ZAECPEHC 39 (20 October 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

74/2020

Judge

Lindoor

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 application to set aside a late answering affidavit, finding no proven prejudice and noting a condonation application was before court.

• Uniform Rule 30
• Condonation
• Irregular Step
• Prejudice Requirement
• Rule-30
• Irregular-step

Malebye Business Enterprise CC and Another v Bela-Bela Business Enterprise CC and Others (4134/2018)

Malebye Business Enterprise CC and Another v Bela-Bela Business Enterprise CC and Others (4134/2018) [2020] ZALMPPHC 36 (18 June 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

4134/2018

Judge

Kganyago

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 irregular-step challenge, holding that the applicants had sufficiently identified the impugned decision and no prejudice was shown.

• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Building Regulations
• Prejudice Requirement
• Rule-30