South Africa Case Law

Road Accident Fund v Nibe (76672/2017)

Road Accident Fund v Nibe (76672/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 24 (16 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76672/2017

Judge

T E Joyini

The court found that the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to contest the amendment to the particulars of claim, which increased the amount claimed for loss of earnings substantially. The respondent failed to comply with Rule 28(2) by not giving notice of the amendment, resulting in a procedural irregularity. The applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for its default, citing the expiration of its panel attorneys' contracts and subsequent lack of representation. The applicant also demonstrated a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as the amendment re-opened…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Rule 28 Amendment Of Pleadings
• Procedural Fairness
• Undue Delay
• Rule 42
• Litis Contestatio

Du Toit v Du Toit and Another (46677/2021)

Du Toit v Du Toit and Another (46677/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1923 (15 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46677/2021

Judge

Retief

The court set aside a respondent’s rule 30 notice, refused condonation for a late exception, and held the notice of bar was a competent procedural step.

• Rule 30 Irregular Steps
• Rule 28 Amendment Of Pleadings
• Exception To Pleadings
• Condonation
• Notice Of Bar
• Civil-procedure

Biomeriux S.A 69280 and Another v Ngobeni (45597/2019)

Biomeriux S.A 69280 and Another v Ngobeni (45597/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 819 (13 December 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

45597/2019

Judge

Phetole Sekhula

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with both the Rules and a specific court order regarding the filing of the notice of intention to defend. The notice of appointment of attorneys could not be equated with a notice of intention to defend, as the two serve distinct procedural purposes. The applicants' explanations for delay, including administrative difficulties and COVID-19 restrictions, did not meet the threshold of good cause required for condonation. The court held that electronic filing of the Rule 28(3) notice of objection did not constitute proper service or filing und…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Notice Of Intention To Defend
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Electronic Filing
• Rule 28 Amendment Of Pleadings