South Africa Case Law

Sithole v MEC for Health: KwaZulu-Natal (Leave to appeal) (10018/2016P)

Sithole v MEC for Health: KwaZulu-Natal (Leave to appeal) (10018/2016P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 63 (27 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

10018/2016P

Judge

Pietersen

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The court found no evidence of a written agreement or waiver by the plaintiff, nor any representation amounting to estoppel. The defendant's reliance on conflicting judgments regarding the effect of striking out a defence was rejected, as the legal position is clear and supported by recent authority. The argument that the order of Hadebe AJ remains suspended due to a pending application for leave to appeal was raised…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Striking Out Of Defence
• Costs Order
• Waiver Of Rights
• Estoppel
• Suspension Of Order

Road Accident Fund v Gobhozi (13027/2024)

Road Accident Fund v Gobhozi (13027/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 477 (19 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13027/2024

Judge

C J Collis

The High Court refused condonation and dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission application, finding no good cause, no Rule 42 basis, and wilful default.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation
• Wilful Default
• Striking Out Of Defence
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Rescission-of-judgment

Sithole v Road Accident Fund (21176/2016)

Sithole v Road Accident Fund (21176/2016) [2025] ZAGPPHC 437 (16 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21176/2016

Judge

Suder

Default judgment against the Road Accident Fund was refused after procedural defects and contradictory evidence left merits unresolved; quantum was postponed.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Default Judgment
• Pleadings Amendment
• Striking Out Of Defence
• Single Witness Evidence
• Road-accident-fund

Kansai Plascon (Pty) Ltd v Rednec Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2020/29803)

Kansai Plascon (Pty) Ltd v Rednec Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2020/29803) [2025] ZAGPJHC 152 (18 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/29803

Judge

H M Viljoen

The High Court struck out the defendants’ defence for persistent non-compliance with court orders and rules, then entered judgment for the plaintiff.

• Striking Out Of Defence
• Summary Judgment
• Non Compliance With Court Order
• Practice Manual Enforcement
• Striking-out-of-defence
• Summary-judgment

Malebana v Road Accident Fund (27833/2016)

Malebana v Road Accident Fund (27833/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1353 (10 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27833/2016

Judge

E M Kubushi

The High Court held that Uniform Rule 30A requires a two-step process: first seek compliance, then seek striking out only after non-compliance persists.

• Rule 30a Non Compliance
• Striking Out Of Defence
• Practice Directives
• Court Discretion
• Civil-procedure
• Rule-30a

Absa Bank Ltd v Ndziba N.O and Others (13189/2014)

Absa Bank Ltd v Ndziba N.O and Others (13189/2014) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1174 (14 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13189/2014

Judge

S. Potterill

The High Court refused condonation for Absa’s late declaration filing, held the earlier order struck out the respondents’ plea and special plea, and made no costs order.

• Condonation
• Striking Out Of Defence
• Late Filing Of Plea
• Rule 30 Application
• Rule-30
• Striking-out-defence

Johester and Others v Road Accident Fund (2020/23383)

Johester and Others v Road Accident Fund (2020/23383) [2024] ZAGPJHC 574 (12 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/23383

Judge

B. Ford

The Court held that a party cannot be compelled to make an election to call expert witnesses or to comply with an undertaking in a pre-trial minute to call experts if it elects not to do so. Rule 36 does not impose a positive obligation to appoint experts, and non-compliance with such undertakings does not constitute non-compliance with the Rules justifying a striking out order under Rule 30A. The striking out of a defence is a drastic remedy and is only competent where expressly provided for in the Rules, such as Rule 21(4) and Rule 35(7). In the absence of such provision, less onerous remed…

Source excerpt

• Striking Out Of Defence
• Rule 30a Application
• Expert Evidence
• Pre Trial Undertakings
• Raf4 Form Compliance

Minister of Police v Kati (CA 15/2024)

Minister of Police v Kati (CA 15/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 30 (15 May 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA 15/2024

Judges

B R Tokota, M Hinana

The appellant failed to provide any explanation for his absence on the date his defence was struck out, did not set out a bona fide defence, and did not address prospects of success in the main action. The application for rescission was unsupported by an application for condonation and relied on new grounds only in reply, which is impermissible. The magistrate correctly dismissed the rescission application, as the appellant did not meet the requirements for rescission nor provide sufficient facts for the court to exercise its discretion in his favour. The appeal against the dismissal of the r…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Striking Out Of Defence
• Condonation
• Magistrates Court Rules

Minister of Police and Another v Ntone (75038/2019)

Minister of Police and Another v Ntone (75038/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 415 (6 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

75038/2019

Judge

Ntlama-Makhanya

The court found that the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 42(1)(a) and common law for rescission. Their explanation for non-compliance, based on lack of awareness and poor internal succession planning, was unreasonable and did not constitute a legitimate or bona fide defence. The applicants' conduct amounted to a disregard of court orders and an abuse of process, undermining the respondent's constitutional rights to access justice and fair remedies. The application was deemed frivolous and intended to delay the main action. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss th…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Default Judgment
• Striking Out Of Defence

Sithole v MEC for Health: KwaZulu-Natal (10018/2016P)

Sithole v MEC for Health: KwaZulu-Natal (10018/2016P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 49 (26 April 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

10018/2016P

Judge

Pietersen

The court dismissed an application by the MEC for Health to defend a damages trial after its defence had been struck out, holding the defendant remained barred.

• Striking Out Of Defence
• Default Judgment
• Waiver Of Rights
• Estoppel
• Medical Negligence
• Striking-out-of-defence