South Africa Case Law

Minister of Police v Abrams (1857/2022)

Minister of Police v Abrams (1857/2022) [2025] ZANWHC 101 (12 June 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1857/2022

Judge

Reddy

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in delivering the application for upliftment of bar. The applicant's affidavit was lacking in primary facts and did not address the critical timelines relevant to good cause. Furthermore, the applicant did not set out a bona fide defence in the founding affidavit, and the defence raised in written argument was not supported by the facts presented. The court held that the requirements for condonation and upliftment of bar under Rule 27 of the Uniform Rules of Court were not satisfied. The…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Upliftment Of Bar
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Bona Fide Defence
• Motion Proceedings

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Manyetsa (5796/2022)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Manyetsa (5796/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 533 (23 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5796/2022

Judge

N Ntlama-Makhanya

The court found that the applicant's reasons for the late filing of the notice of leave to appeal—namely internal consultative processes, non-availability of counsel, and administrative error—were not reasonable or sufficient to constitute good cause under Rule 27(3). The applicant, as an organ of state, is expected to maintain efficient administrative processes and comply with prescribed timeframes. The delay, although not excessive in duration, was not justified by the explanations provided. The court held that the internal processes and administrative error did not absolve the applicant fr…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Late Filing
• Leave To Appeal
• Good Cause
• Judicial Discretion

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Limphota Housing CC (Leave to Appeal) (17766/2023)

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Limphota Housing CC (Leave to Appeal) (17766/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 346 (1 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

17766/2023

Judge

SM Maritz

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success, a satisfactory delay explanation, or a bona fide defence.

• Leave To Appeal
• Upliftment Of Bar
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Condonation
• Hearsay Evidence
• Leave-to-appeal

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Mayetsa (5796/2022)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Mayetsa (5796/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 233 (5 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5796/2022

Judge

N Ntlama-Makhanya

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and credible explanation for the delay in filing its plea, relying solely on an administrative error and attempting to apportion negligence to the defendant without substantiation. The court found that the delay was self-inflicted and not justified by sound reasons. The interests of justice, as required by Rule 27(3) and constitutional principles, were not served by granting condonation in these circumstances. The applicant's conduct demonstrated a lack of urgency and bona fides, and the prejudice to the defendant was not adequately addressed. Ac…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Late Filing Of Plea
• Interests Of Justice
• Apportionment Of Negligence

Minister of Police v Hadebe (1905/2022)

Minister of Police v Hadebe (1905/2022) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 84 (12 November 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1905/2022

Judge

B A Mashile

The High Court dismissed the Minister of Police’s late condonation and rescission application, finding the delay unexplained, the bar unresolved, and the alleged defence unsubstantiated.

• Condonation
• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Wrongful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Rule 31 Uniform Rules

Tlhabanyane v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (92483/19)

Tlhabanyane v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (92483/19) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1489 (16 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

92483/19

Judge

de Vos

The applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the 18-month delay in filing his plea, with none of the four explanations covering the entire period or aligning with the chronology of events. The applicant did not demonstrate bona fides or a bona fide defence, as his defences were either unfounded or dilatory. The right of access to courts under section 34 of the Constitution was not violated by the application of Rule 27, as the applicant did not challenge the constitutionality of the rule or develop the argument. The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 27, foun…

Source excerpt

• Notice Of Bar
• Condonation
• Home Loan Agreement
• Acceleration Clause
• Access To Courts
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules

Road Accident Fund v Botes (36536/2019)

Road Accident Fund v Botes (36536/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 365 (21 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

36536/2019

Judge

Strijdom

The High Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission application and refused to reinstate its defence after discovery and strike-out orders.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Discovery Affidavit
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Rescission-of-judgment

V.D.W. v van der Westhuizen Attorneys (5333/2017)

V.D.W. v van der Westhuizen Attorneys (5333/2017) [2023] ZALMPPHC 2 (18 January 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5333/2017

Judge

Kganyago

High Court granted an extension of time to file an exception and uplifted a notice of bar, finding good cause under Rule 27.

• Extension Of Time
• Notice Of Bar
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Exception Procedure
• Rule-27
• Notice-of-bar

Nethonondo and Others v Nathcron CC (44522/2018)

Nethonondo and Others v Nathcron CC (44522/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 751 (23 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

44522/2018

Judge

Ally

The court found that the Applicants provided a sufficiently full explanation for the delay, which was not inordinate and was primarily due to circumstances at their attorneys' office, including a burglary. The Applicants demonstrated a bona fide defence and the Respondent did not show that it would suffer irreparable prejudice if condonation was granted. The court held that the interests of justice favoured granting condonation and uplifting the notice of bar, allowing the Applicants to defend the action. The conduct of the Applicants' legal representatives should not be held against them in…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Notice Of Bar
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Late Plea
• Interests Of Justice

Kanhym Estates (Pty) Ltd v Steve Tshwete Local Municipality (3234/2019)

Kanhym Estates (Pty) Ltd v Steve Tshwete Local Municipality (3234/2019) [2022] ZAMPMHC 4 (28 March 2022)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3234/2019

Judge

S S Mphahlele

The High Court uplifted a bar under Rule 27(2), finding sufficient cause for the defendant to file a plea and noting the dispute over service and arrears.

• Upliftment Of Bar
• Rule 27 Uniform Rules
• Plea And Counterclaim
• Service Of Summons
• Upliftment-of-bar
• Rule-27-2