South Africa Case Law

Praia Roche 122 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa (Leave to Appeal) (658/2022)

Praia Roche 122 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa (Leave to Appeal) (658/2022) [2025] ZANCHC 65 (20 June 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

658/2022

Judge

Mamosebo

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay of 17 months in filing the application for leave to appeal. The explanation offered was vague, lacked specific dates and details, and did not cover the entire period of delay. The applicants attempted to raise new grounds not canvassed in the main proceedings, which is impermissible in motion proceedings. The court held that the applicants' conduct was dilatory and aimed at frustrating the execution process. There were no prospects of success or compelling reasons to grant leave to…

Source excerpt

• Condonation For Late Filing
• Leave To Appeal
• Special Executability
• Rule 49
• Rule 27
• Rule 46

Sibanye Still Water N.O and Others v Xinshe (M98/2022)

Sibanye Still Water N.O and Others v Xinshe (M98/2022) [2025] ZANWHC 102 (17 June 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M98/2022

Judge

T Masike

The High Court held that a request for written reasons was filed late under Rule 49(1)(c) and could not be entertained without consent or condonation.

• Security For Costs
• Late Filing
• Condonation
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Rule 49
• Rule 27

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

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

Buffelsdrift Wild and Nature Reserve (Pty) Ltd v Magalies Water Board (44776/2021)

Buffelsdrift Wild and Nature Reserve (Pty) Ltd v Magalies Water Board (44776/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1185 (19 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44776/2021

Judge

Meaden

The High Court refused condonation for a late leave to appeal application, finding the delay unsatisfactorily explained and the proposed appeal fatally defective.

• Condonation
• Leave To Appeal
• Rule 49
• Rule 27
• Interlocutory Orders
• Leave-to-appeal

Hugo v Road Accident Fund (055136/2022)

Hugo v Road Accident Fund (055136/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 791 (12 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

055136/2022

Judge

Holland-Muter

The court found that the Road Accident Fund's conduct in delivering a notice of intention to defend on the eve of the default judgment hearing, after repeated requests and prolonged inactivity, constituted a gross abuse of process. Rule 19(5) does not operate to the exclusion of Rule 27, and an explanation for belated delivery is required to enable the court to exercise its discretion. The defendant failed to provide any affidavit or substantive explanation for its delay, relying solely on counsel's submissions, which do not amount to evidence. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to…

Source excerpt

• Notice Of Intention To Defend
• Abuse Of Process
• Default Judgment
• Condonation
• Rule 19 5
• Rule 27

Avbob Funeral Services v Buzani (2810/2020)

Avbob Funeral Services v Buzani (2810/2020) [2024] ZAECQBHC 5 (30 January 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

2810/2020

Judge

A.S. Zono

Application to uplift notices of bar dismissed for unexplained delay, no bona fide defence, and mala fide conduct aimed at delaying the respondent's claim.

• Removal Of Bar
• Condonation
• Rule 27
• Delay In Pleading
• Removal-of-bar
• Rule-27

Vico Mining (Pty) Ltd v Advance Industrial Solutions (Pty) Ltd (2021/20060)

Vico Mining (Pty) Ltd v Advance Industrial Solutions (Pty) Ltd (2021/20060) [2023] ZAGPJHC 433 (8 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/20060

Judge

E Dreyer

The court granted condonation for the late filing of a plea and uplifted the bar after finding a reasonable explanation, a bona fide defence, and minimal delay.

• Condonation
• Removal Of Bar
• Rule 27
• Default Judgment
• Bona Fide Defence
• Removal-of-bar

Bozwana v Tshenolo Resources (2324 / 2017)

Bozwana v Tshenolo Resources (2324 / 2017) [2021] ZANCHC 49 (3 September 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2324 / 2017

Judge

Moses

The High Court dismissed a late rescission application with costs, finding no good cause for condonation and no bona fide defence on the papers.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation
• Interlocutory Application
• Rule 27
• Bona Fide Defence
• Rescission-of-judgment

Botha t/a Tax Consulting SA v Renwick (2019/35217)

Botha t/a Tax Consulting SA v Renwick (2019/35217) [2021] ZAGPJHC 37 (13 April 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/35217

Judge

L.J. du Bruyn

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a sufficiently full, reasonable, and bona fide explanation for the delay in bringing the security for costs application. The explanation offered was vague and unconvincing, and the plaintiff did not take the court into his confidence regarding his conduct and motives. Although the plaintiff had good prospects of success and the delay did not cause substantial prejudice to the defendant, these factors did not compensate for the failure to meet the requirements for condonation under Rule 27. Applying the weighting principle, the court exercis…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Condonation
• Rule 47
• Rule 27
• Judicial Discretion