South Africa Case Law

Ingqwele Consulting and Projects Management (Pty) Ltd v Cummins South Africa (Pty) Ltd (27880/2022)

Ingqwele Consulting and Projects Management (Pty) Ltd v Cummins South Africa (Pty) Ltd (27880/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 293 (17 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27880/2022

Judge

Geach

The court held that the respondent's notice of bar was premature, as it was served immediately after the dismissal of the applicant's exception without allowing the applicant the twenty-day period to plead as contemplated by Rule 22(1). The rules do not provide for immediate barring in such circumstances, and the notice of bar should only be served after the time to plead has elapsed post-dismissal. The applicant's failure to respond within five days to an illegitimate notice of bar does not constitute a delay requiring explanation. The applicant's plea and counterclaims, though delivered bel…

Source excerpt

• Uplifting Of Bar
• Default Judgment
• Notice Of Bar
• Good Cause
• Rule 26
• Rule 27

Ketse and Another v Motlhabedi (M03/2021)

Ketse and Another v Motlhabedi (M03/2021) [2024] ZANWHC 10 (18 January 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M03/2021

Judge

Reddy

The court held that filing an exception interrupted the original bar. After withdrawal of the exception, a fresh notice of bar was required before default judgment could proceed.

• Notice Of Bar
• Exception Procedure
• Default Judgment
• Rule 23
• Rule 26
• Notice-of-bar

Manufacturing, Engineering & Related Services Sector Education & Training Authority v Mhlaba (033076/2022)

Manufacturing, Engineering & Related Services Sector Education & Training Authority v Mhlaba (033076/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1038 (18 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

033076/2022

Judge

Noko

The High Court held that the defendant was ipso facto barred for failing to plead timeously, and struck the exception application from the roll with costs.

• Notice Of Bar
• Exception Procedure
• Rule 26
• Rule 30
• Removal Of Bar
• Notice-of-bar

Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commissioner and Another (69944/2019)

Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commissioner and Another (69944/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 720 (26 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69944/2019

Judge

L Pillay

The court dismissed a default judgment application, holding that an exception delivered in response to a notice of bar prevented the plaintiff from obtaining default judgment.

• Default Judgment
• Exception Procedure
• Notice Of Bar
• Rule 23
• Rule 26
• Rule 30a

Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd v Kegtlengrivier Local Municipality (3200/19)

Bertobrite (Pty) Ltd v Kegtlengrivier Local Municipality (3200/19) [2021] ZANWHC 47 (20 April 2021)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

3200/19

Judge

A.M. Mtembu

The court held that the respondent was entitled to file a notice of exception in response to the notice of bar, provided it was done within the period specified by the notice. The authorities cited confirm that an exception is a valid procedural step under Rule 26 and Rule 23, and the respondent complied with the rules by delivering the exception before the expiry of the notice of bar period. The applicant's submission that only a plea is permissible after a notice of bar was rejected. The application for default judgment was therefore dismissed, as the respondent was not barred from pleading…

Source excerpt

• Notice Of Bar
• Exception Procedure
• Default Judgment
• Rule 23
• Rule 26

Draht and Others v Manqele and Others (2014/29501)

Draht and Others v Manqele and Others (2014/29501) [2017] ZAGPPHC 44 (14 February 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29501/2014

Judge

Kennedy Tsatsawane

The court held that Rule 26 does not apply to time periods prescribed by a court order, but only to those set out in the Rules or extended in terms of the Rules. Therefore, the applicants were not automatically barred from delivering their declaration for failing to comply with the time period in the court order. However, since the applicants delivered their declaration out of time and did not seek condonation or an extension under Rule 27, the application for default judgment was not properly before the court. The notice of bar issued by the applicants was set aside, the application for defa…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• Notice Of Bar
• Rule 26
• Rule 27
• Late Delivery Of Pleadings

Tuffsan Investments 1088 (Pty) Ltd v Sethole and Another (22826/2015)

Tuffsan Investments 1088 (Pty) Ltd v Sethole and Another (22826/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 653 (4 August 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22826/2015

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

The court found that the defendants were entitled to serve a notice in terms of Rule 23(1) within the period allotted in the notice of bar, and that their notice of intention to except complied with the requirements of Rule 26. The administrative error in serving the exception was explained and not wilful. The court accepted the defendants' explanation and held that good cause was shown for the delay. The interpretation of Rule 23 and Rule 26, supported by Felix and Landmark Mthatha, allows for the filing of an exception after the initial 20-day period, provided the notice of bar is complied…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Late Filing Of Exception
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Rule 23
• Rule 26