Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
ABSA Bank v Murray (EL 1130/2013) [2025] ZAECELLC 2 (4 February 2025)
The court set aside an amended plea as irregular for failing to follow Uniform Rule 28, and directed the plaintiff to regularise its pleadings first.
A.V.D.W v Van Der Westhuizen Attorneys (5333/2017) [2024] ZALMPPHC 31 (2 April 2024)
The High Court granted Rule 30 relief, held the defendant’s exception was an irregular step, and set it aside with attorney-and-client costs.
Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Another v University of the Free State and Others (3497/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 511 (27 December 2023)
The court found that the Sixth Respondent did not seek leave to file the Explanatory Affidavit, nor did the previous orders grant a blanket licence to file any affidavit at will. The orders were specific in permitting supplementation, answering, or replying by way of further affidavit, but only with proper application and court approval. The Sixth Respondent failed to provide a plausible explanation for not including the relevant facts in his earlier affidavit, and the Explanatory Affidavit did not address new matters or evidence. Its filing constituted an irregular step under Rule 30, and th…
Source excerpt
Mpumalanga Economic Growth Agency v Roadspan Surfaces (Pty) Ltd (2548/2020) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 69 (9 November 2023)
The court dismissed MEGA’s Rule 30 application for late service and upheld Roadspan’s Rule 30 challenge, finding MEGA’s application irregular and awarding costs.
Da Cruz v Manzella and Others (21/42640) [2023] ZAGPJHC 238 (16 March 2023)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 challenge, holding that the respondents had taken further steps and were barred from attacking the earlier interlocutory application.
Lekwa Local Municipality and Another v Afri-Infra Group (Pty) Ltd (2597/2018) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 65 (8 August 2022)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 application after finding the notice and application were both late under the Uniform Rules, with punitive costs ordered.
Mokohare Local Municipality and Another v South African Local Authorities Pension Fund In re South African Local Authorities Pension Fund v Mokohare Local Muni (4145/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 136 (9 June 2022)
The court held that the SALAPF, by delivering a replying affidavit and fully addressing the allegations raised in the late answering affidavit, effectively acquiesced to the late filing and disposed of the need for condonation. The SALAPF did not challenge the late filing as an irregular step under Rule 30 and did not demonstrate any prejudice suffered. The application for condonation was therefore unnecessary and prompted by the SALAPF's own conduct. No order as to costs was warranted, as the Municipality had sought indulgence and acted transparently.
Source excerpt
JC vd Linde & Venter Projects (Pty) Ltd v Bespoke Kitchens & Designs (Pty) Ltd and Another (38726/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 253 (22 February 2022)
The High Court set aside an answering affidavit as an irregular step after finding non-compliance with Uniform Rule 53 and no waiver by the applicant.
JC vd Linde & Venter Projects (Pty) Ltd v Bespoke Kitchens & Designs (Pty) Ltd and Another (38726/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 287 (10 February 2022)
The High Court set aside the First Respondent’s answering affidavit as an irregular step after non-compliance with Rule 53 in review proceedings.
Mpumalanga Economic Growth Agency v Nemorango Consulting Engineers CC (2029/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 32 (22 July 2021)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and holding that condonation could not be used to challenge a final court order.
Explore more
