Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The Ever Changing Legal Field

South African society reforms are far from over.  Democracy is winding its way down into the details of legislation.  Amidst many changing laws, the National Credit Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the new Companies Act are sure to impact largely on society and in particular, commerce.

To top it all, the civil court rules and structures have been drastically changed and many questions are posed daily on how the new Magistrates' Court Rules should be applied.

Lets use this blog to brainstorm and exchange ideas about the proper application.

75 comments:

  1. Introductory Power Point Slides available at http://www.barnards.co.za/Magistrate's%20Court.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. These came into operation on 15 October 2010 and bring the Magistrates' Court Rules and High Court Rules closer together.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is a debate as to whether they apply to claims that arose before the new rules came into operation.(That is to claims which arose before 15 October 2010.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. It doesn't seem that the Department of Justice has uploaded the updated forms on their website.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nadia, when they become available, they will probably be posted at http://www.justice.gov.za/forms/form_mcr.htm
    The new rules have been posted at http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/rules/rules.htm and the High Court forms are there as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Ettienne, I look forward to your future blog posts! Good Luck! Shaun Benater www.benaterattorneys.co.za

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well done for doing this, Perino Pama

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Shaun & Perino. Looking forward to your contributions or questions.

    Was it really intended that the District Magistrates' Court has greater jurisdiction than the Regional Magistrates' Court in credit agreements?

    In terms of s29(1)(e) the District Courts have unlimited jurisdiction. The section does not limit it to an amount to be anounced by the Minister. s29(1A) however tasks the Minister with determining Regional Court jurisdiction in respect of National Credit Act (NCA) matters and the Minister has determined this at R300000. The effect is that the lower District Court may hear NCA matters concerning disputes of more than R300 000 while the higher Regional Court may not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr ettienne, when you talk about s29(1)(e), which act are you referring to?

      Delete
  9. I recently requested further particulars from an opposing attorney and they refused to furnish me with the same:

    Our client received a summons for payment of a sum of money on about the beginning of October of this year. However our client only came to see us last week only regarding the summons.

    The particulars does have problems, in that the amount on the summons varies significantly from the amount indicated on the letter of demand. In addition the amount that is being sued for is not itemized but simply a bulk figure.

    In light of the above I prepared to serve the attorneys representing the Plaintiff that is suing our client with a request for further particulars in which I ask why the amount on the summons and letter of demand varies in such a big way and I also request a breakdown of the bulk amount being claimed. I have also requested that they furnish us with relevant documents.

    Yesterday morning I received a correspondence from the attorneys indicating that I am not entitled to the further particulars as per the new Magistrate’s Court Rules and that I am to withdraw the request and tender wasted costs by tomorrow the 15th failing which they will make formal application to Court to declare this as an irregular step.

    I have since checked up on the new rules and discovered that Rule 16 does indeed prohibit me from requesting such particulars. However my concern is with Rule 69(b) which indicates that the previous forms may still be used for 12 months following the enactment of the new rules? Does this apply to the precedents such as the format of the summons etc?

    Is there any way that I can still be entitled to request the further particulars maybe due to the fact that the summons was issued out prior to the new rules coming into being?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Nazeer. Perhaps the following will assist you in answering the alleged irregular proceedings claim and enforcing your client’s right to further particulars:

    The Interpretation Act 33, 1957 applies. In terms of section 1 Its provisions apply to the interpretation of every law (as in this Act defined) in force, at or after the commencement of this Act in the Republic or in any portion thereof, and to the interpretation of all by-laws, rules, regulations or orders made under the authority of any such law, unless there is something in the language or context of the law, by-law, rule, regulation or order repugnant to such provisions or unless the contrary intention appears therein.

    In terms of section 2 of the Interpretation Act, where a law repeals any other law, then unless the contrary intention appears, the repeal shall not affect :
    1 The previous operation of the repealed law;
    2 Anything duly done or suffered under the repealed law;
    3 Any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed law;
    4 Any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against the repealed law; or
    5 Any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture or punishment as is in this subsection mentioned.
    Section 2 specifically states that any legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing law had not been passed.

    A strong argument has therefore been made out (BY ADV Van Loggerenberg) that the old rules continue to apply where at least the first court document in a matter has been issued.

    I submit that if this opinion is correct, it might not just be where the first document has been issued that the old rules apply. The words ”shall not affect any right…or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed” indicate that if the claim existed before the repeal, then that claim may be instituted in terms of the old rules. The wording “any legal proceeding…may be instituted” supports this interpretation.

    If any of the following two Interpretation Act provisos apply, the former rules would not be applicable:
    1 “unless there is something in the language or context of the…rule, repugnant to such provisions”, or
    2 “unless the contrary intention appears therein”
    It does not seem that there are indications in the new rules that would activate the above proviso. If there are, one would have to look to the new rules to resolve transitional period hiccups.

    A possible weak point in the opinion is that one could distinguish between procedural and substantive law rights. In other words your right is for the substantive relief whereas the procedure you follow, should be in terms of the new rules. The other point is that the expressed purpose of the new rules is in line with the constitution whereas the old ones might have “repugnant” aspects which would mean that the Interpretation Act is excluded by the intention of the rules drafter. The answer to the latter is that the old rules were not repugnant and should be interpreted in line with the Constitution.

    All the best with your matter. Please let us know if the matter is resolved on a different basis. I'm sure there are many similar matters and practitioners will be interested in the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nazeer, i have a similar situation and i will appreciate to get the outcome of your matter. My Client's situation is a motor vehicle collision claim in that our Client was sued as the second defendant by vitue of being the lawful owner of the taxi, who is unaware of how the accident occured. Now has been summoned and the first Defendant who was taxi driver is no longer working for my Client and has never informed our Client about the accident. I strongly believe that it is within my legal rights for the purpose of pleading to request further in order to establish how the accident occurred. Now the Plaintiff Attorney refuse or neglect to reply to my further particulars but instead they served us with an application for default judgment. Upon receipt of their application, i immediately wrote letter to the Plaintiff's Attorney informing him that we are still waiting for their reply to the further particulars to enable us to plead and they informed that i have to read the new directives, kindly advise me

      Delete
  11. Hi Mr. Barnard, I have another question for you on the New Mag Court Amendments;

    Has the monetary jurisdiction increased, and if so to how much?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The reason for my earlier question is because I would like to bring an application based on the rei vindicato. It involves a vehicle which values at R171 000.00. Therefore I was wondering whether this application should be brought in the High Court or alternatively in the Mag Court under the new amendments?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Nazeer: the District Court jurisdiction is still the same (Most matters up to R100000; Administration up to R50000; Unlimited in respect of National Credit Act credit agreements). The Regional Magistrates' Court now has jurisdiction in most matters above R100000 up to R300000. It has unlimited jurisdiction for divorces (It can basically do anything the High Court can do in divorce proceedings.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Unless it is in the form of an interdict (which can be brought by application), the Rei Vindicatio might have to be brought by way of an action as the Magistrates' Court Act and rules do not allow applications to reclaim ownership. You can use the Regional Magistrates' Court unless you have defendants/respondents in more than one location. In the latter instance the High Court would be best.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Ettienne, there is only one Defendant in this matter and he and the cause of action both are located/took place in George. Therefore I assume that it will be appropriate to utilize the Regional Court in this regard. Thank you for your feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What will your prayers be? If you are claiming return of the vehicle with action proceedings, you may do so in the Regional Court. If it involves a credit agreement and your contract is subject to the National Credit Act, you may even do so in the district court by action. If you want to do it by application proceedings,I think you will have to use the High Court.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No it has nothing to do with the NCA, our client's father is the owner of a company here in Cape Town and the company is indebted to some company in George, and that company is holding on to my client's vehicle as they allege that it was left there as a form of surety and my client disputes this in every conceivable way.

    Further my client is in no way personally indebted to the company nor is he affiliated to his fathers company in any manner.

    Therefore I feel that this is along the lines of the Rei Vindicatio.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sounds like action proceedings in the Regional Court or an High Court application. The difference is of course time and length of procedure. But the dispute of fact indicates that the action proceeding might be the better route.

    Please always remember our comments are made to assist but must be read subject to our disclaimer which can be read at http://www.barnards.co.za/disclaimer.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you, yes I am fully aware and the guidance in this manner is appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Many old contract precedents contain a clause where one or various parties consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court irrespective that the amount involved exceeds the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court. If the contract was concluded before the 2010 introduction of the Regional Magistrates' Court, it is obvious that the R100000 (district) limit was being referred to. What is the position if the contract was concluded after that date and the amount in dispute is R250000? Should this clause be adapted in new contracts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi mr ettienne, my client had a credit agreement to the amount of R768997.00 with his debtor and the contract included a "consent to magistrates jurisdiction'' clause. Judgment was given in the regional court but a portion of the amount was rescined, how do I then challenge the rescission of the amount and which court should I go to?

      Delete
  21. Some interesting comments on the New Rules are made by Paul Jacobson in his blawg (law blog) at http://webtechlaw.com/posts/big-changes-for-magistrates-courts-in-south-africa.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Ettienne

    Congratulations on setting up this most useful and interesting blog. I look forward to many good discussions and hope to enjoy the networking and interaction with fellow bloggers in the future.

    Well done.

    Regards
    Ashraf

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks Ashraf.

    One of the aspects that will be interesting to note is whether the Magistrates will allow the short application form to be used for rental PIE (eviction) applications. This was previously possible but the New Rules have brought the High Court position of the Cape Kilarney case to apply to a large extent on Magistrates' Courts.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi there. I am not sure how to site the new rules correctly in an affidavit I preparing.

    Please help!

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Melanie. Thanks for the question. Why do you need to site them? An affidavit usually contains evidence and not law. If you must site them, I suppose the reference should be to the "Magistrates' Court Rules" and you can add "as amended" if you want to draw attention to the fact that you refer to the new rules.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gooday Ettiene

    I heard from one of my colleagues that the Chief Magistrate has issued a recent directive whereby it is said that if your summons/application has been issued prior to the 15th October 2010 then the old Magistrate Court Rules would be applicable for the duration of that matter.

    Do you perhaps know of any such directive and if so where would I be able to find it?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nazeer

    If it is so, it makes sense. Our local clerk has indicated that they did receive correspondence in that regard. I have not seen it yet but will try to get hold of it.

    Do you know which court's Chief Magistrate?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dear Ettienne

    I managed to locate the Directive in Question, however I am not sure from which Magistrate it came from?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks Nazeer

    Despite the directive, also see the alternative argument discussed in http://newmcrules.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-rules-old-rules-different-approach.html
    One hopes that the quickest and most cost effective route will be followed and that that will also be the fair outcome. This will give effect to the fact that rules are made for the court and not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi

    Does anyone have a precedent for a rent interdict summons that complied with the amendment to the magistrates court rules. Also can I add the cost of a loscksmith who provided my client with access to the commercial property after the tenant left the premises.

    Adila

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Adila. Form 3 attached to the rules serves as the precedent. If the sheriff appointed the locksmith, it will form part of the sheriff's costs. If you or your client apponted the locksmith, it is damages unless the contract made provision for such costs to be regarded as rental. If it is damages, the particulars of claim should make the usual damages allegations.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Good afternoon Mr Barnard,

    Thank you for your informative notes on the magistrate's court rules :) However, I have a question regarding a Divorce Summons in the regional court.

    Slide 131 of your notes state that Defendant cannot consent to judgment in terms of rule 11(1) or (4) however slide 130 states that the summons must adhere to all the requirements of rule 5.

    Does this mean that after I have signed the summons I only need to make provision for the defendant's notice of intention to defend and i do away with the consent as well as the notice regarding costs and the section 65A(1) which would be irrelevant for the purposes of a divorce, or is it still necessary to include these for the sake of completion in terms of the rule?

    Nasreen

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dear Nasreen
    Good question.
    Rule 5 uses the words "Every summons shall include..", and it makes no exception for a divorce summons. It is unfortunate that rule 11 (1) and (4) clashes with Rule 5 and Rule 5 should have referred to the exception. You run the risk of an application in terms of Rule 60A, an irregular step, if your summons does not comply with Rule 5. If you want to, you can add to the paragraph for consent to judgment in your summons, that a defendant in a divorce matter can not consent to judgment.

    The same argument goes for the requirement to refer to sec 65(A)(1). To leave it in does no harm and it might be conceivable that a defendant in a divorce action does not comply with the court order and must be taken to court in terms of section 65(A)(1) in a monetary claim.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hi, I just had an application in court where the parties agreed to have the application adjourned for 2 weeks by consent with costs in the cause and the magistrate refused to adjourn to the specific date, indicated that he is obliged by the new rules to adjourn the matter sine dies. I cant seem to find this in the new rules, is this the correct procedure?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dear Mr Barnard,

    Thank you for your help this blog is a great idea :)

    Nasreen

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi Joshna. The comment of the Magistrate seems strange. Ask him what rule.

    Rule 1(2) specifically says "These rules are to be applied so as to facilitate expeditious handling of disputes and the minimization of costs involved. Sine die postponements seem to be counter this intention of the rules.

    I have also canvassed this with another senior Magistrate and he disagrees with the view of the Magistrate you refer to.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Ettienne

    Please help, i want to know if the consent to Jurisdiction(SEC45) still legal and can the debt collectors still use it.We got a magistrate that have alot of issues with sec45, but my seeing is if its legal he cant bend the rules.

    thanks
    Rudi Pretorius

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi Rudi

    Section 45 is still alive and well and parties may consent to jurisdiction. In a recent reported judgment the court refused to accept such a consent as valid where it dealt with Debt Review ito the NCA and the court said all the respondents (creditors)should have consented and not just the consumer.

    The judgment also confirms that one can consent to monetary jurisdiction but not of a specific geographical court. In other words, the parties may consent to jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court in a contract but not to the Magistrates' Court of Pretoria or any other jurisdiction. The distinction relates to the different sections 28 and 29 of the MC Act. the one seals with persons and the other with the cause of action.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am faced with another application for further particulars in terms of the new rules but already gave further particulars prior to Oct 2010. Do I have to provide it again. This time an extremely comprehensive request? Any authority?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi Melkbos
    The application for further particulars to plead has fallen away in the new rules.So if it is a request for further particulars to plead, then you do not have to comply.The new rules do provide for further particulars to be requested in preparation for trial. But it is not carte blanche, if the particulars are not necessary, the court can make a cost order against the opponent at the trial. The best authorities to consult would be the High Court text books on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi Ettienne!

    Can a plaintiff request for further particulars to a defendant's plea 6 months after the defendant delivered his/her plea?
    John

    ReplyDelete
  42. Only if it is by agreement.The request for further particulars to a plea has been removed from the rules.If the plaintiff really cannot reply, he or she would have to have use the exception or irregular proceedings rules and you would have to amend your plea to include all such information needed to reply to the plea. Are you sure the plaintiff is not now requesting further particulars for purposes of trial (because the new rules allow the latter)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ettienne, I just found a copy of the Magistrate's New Rules and Rule 16 (2) (a) clearly states that after the close of proceedings any party may, not less than 20 days before trial, deliver a notice requesting only such further particulars as are strictly necessary to enable him or her to prepare for trial.(therefore the Plaintiff is justified in his request) i have searched for case law relating to how judges have interpreted "strictly necessary" and cannot seem to find any results...but thanks for your help

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi Steve
    Your point of departure could be the High Court Uniform Rule 21 which is similar worded to new MCRule 16. See the High Court text books, Von Gordon v Von Gordon 1961 (1) SA 211 (T) and annotations of that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi...... Do all pleadings require the DOJ logo on it ? Many thanks, Shays

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hi Shays
    No. I have heard of a Magistrate that insists on this but I can only think that the Magistrate saw a logo on the Department of Justice examples or documents sent to her. The pleadings need to resemble the forms attached to the new rules. These forms do not contain any DOJ logo or coat of arms.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Please note that the latest slides on Magistrates' Court Practice are now on our website at http://www.barnards.co.za

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi Ettienne

    Can rei vindicatio proceedings only be brought by means of an action (instead of an application) in the magistrates court? The value of the vehicle concerned is less that R100 000.00 and the facts are not in dispute.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hi Nomikos
    I think you must use action proceedings. The usual procedure in the Magistrates' Court seems to be an action for delivery under s29(1)(a) which could be coupled (if necessary) with an application for an interdict protecting the asset in terms of s30 as read with rules 55 & 56. The court is a creature of statute which means it only derives jurisdiction if the act or rules say so. Neither of these authorize an application for enforcing ownership.

    Its a good idea to check this out in Jones & Buckle or one of the standard Magistrates'Court commentaries. They can still be used in this context as the sections relevant to such jurisdiction in respect of the District Court have not changed since 15 October 2010.

    I hope this assists. Please always remember our comments are made to assist but must be read subject to our disclaimer which can be read at http://www.barnards.co.za/disclaimer.html

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi Mr Barnard,I need your assistance in respect of a High Court Matter specifically how to set it down,pleadings is not yet closed the Defendant has filed there Plea but simultaneously reqeusted further particulars,is the Plaintiff obliged to reply,Plaintiff is already few days out of time?
    Thank you for your valuable blog.

    Nazeem

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hi Nazeem, we try and focus on the Magistrates' Court process in this blog but it has become virtually the same as that of the High Court in so many ways, that I will deal with it.

    According to the Uniform Rules of Court any party may request further particulars after the close of pleadings. These Particulars should however be needed in order to prepare for trial.

    It seems from your note that pleadings have not closed in your matter and therefore the request for further particulars may be seen as an Irregular Proceeding (in terms of Rule 30.) You must object within the prescribed time period.

    If they requested that you only provide further particulars after the time for replication to the plea has lapsed, then it will not be an irregular proceeding and you must reply if the request complies with the "necessary for trial preparation" aspect.

    In the Western Cape High Court the matter can be set down after the close of pleadings. The attorney must collate, number consecutively and suitably secure all pages of the pleadings and documents in the court file. A complete index together with a questionnaire in accordance with the Practice Directives must be prepared and delivered. See amongst other aspects Practice Note 39.

    Please always remember our comments are made to assist but must be read subject to our disclaimer which can be read at http://www.barnards.co.za/disclaimer.html. Our comments should never be applied as a substitute for thorough research.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ettienne,

    Could you be so kind as to let me have the reference of the AD case to which you referred in your posting of 2 April last under the title,“New Rules, Old Rules: A different approach”?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hi Ettienne

    I have a question about security for costs in the Mag Court. Is a nulla bona return grounds for demanding secuirty for cost and judgment if the defendant has made an application for rescission of a default judgment? Thanks for the great blog.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dear Mr Barnard,

    I served a notice of bar on the plaintiff in a matter as they had failed to serve their declaration on time and the dies has now expired.

    In terms of Rule 15(5) it states that I may now apply to court for absolution from the instance.

    Does this Application have to be in terms of Form 1 or Form 1A and does my client have to depose to a detailed affidavit as to why absolution from the instance should be granted or can it be a simple affidavit stating that summons was served on x date, intention to defend served on y date, notice of bar was filed on z date and that the period for serving the declaration has expired and pray for an order of absolution of the instance?

    Also if anyone has a precedent for this it would be much appreciated :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nasreem,

      My name is Alisje is it possible for you to provide me with your template you used in the abovementioned application for absolution from the instance? I have a similar scenario and would be much appreciated if you can provide me with a template.

      Delete
  55. Hi Coen
    Have a look at TRANSNET LTD v NGCEZULA 1995 (3) SA 538 (A) which quotes with approval: Curtis v Johannesburg Municipality1906 TS. The latter case was also referred in the Constitutional Court matters of Fredericks and Others v MEC For Education and Training, Eastern Cape, and Others 2002 (2) SA 693(CC) and Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division 2007 (3)SA 210 (CC).

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hi Joscelyne
    Thanks for joining the blog. The old rules provided that a defendant may request security and not a plaintiff. It did apply to applications which meant that a respondent could request security from an applicant. The new rule refers to "a party entitled and desiring to demand security" and speaks of "proceedings".So security may be requested.

    As to the reason for the request, a nulla bona is an act of insolvency in terms of s8(b) of the Insolvency Act. It is an indication that a debtor cannot pay and might be a good reason to request security. Just remember that in terms of case law, you need to request the security and if it is necessary to enforce by application, the requester has the onus to show on the papers that security is necessary (which means that you should at least attach the Nulla Bona as proof of the inability to pay) Before doing that however, do deeds office searches as a Nulla Bona does not necessarily mean that the debtor does not own immovable property of substantial value. If the debtor does own such property, it might be used as a defence against your client requesting security.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hi Nasreen
    Good question.I realize rule 15(5) refers to "apply" and "apply" is defined in rule 2(1) as "apply on motion". However the proviso to rule 2 specifically states that that is the definition "UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE INDICATES".The context of rule 15(5) seems to indicate otherwise in that it states that you may "set the action down for hearing .....and apply for absolution or" adduce further evidence and apply "for judgment".The apply envisaged here seems to be from the bar as part of the action and not application.

    To err on the side of caution, you can set the matter down and for the same date give notice of the application for absolution. The notice is however neither form 1 or 1A. It is a hybrid form used in interlocutory applications in terms of rule 55(4). It is definitely incidental to the action proceeding and as such the long form need not be used. You may insert the hearing date into such a notice. The hearing date may be applied for with the process set out in terms of rule 22.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thank you Mr Barnard, I shall do so :)

    ReplyDelete
  59. That's a nice idea! I think many will get interested to join in this brainstorming. Thanks for sharing.

    Legal translation services

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thanks Seffliva. On reading your comment, I visited the Legal translation services site and viewed the video. It looks good and the service offered certainly helps to make the world a smaller place.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dear Mr. Barnard, I noticed the Form No. 3 does not require the Plaintiff to add the address of the Clerk of the Court. Could it be an oversight?
    Thanks Lurine

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dear Mr Barnard. I think I have an interesting question. Ito old rules, there was no declaration for the simple summons, but now we seem to follow the HC (actually increasing the costs). If, after the new rules came into effect, no declaration was filed, and the Defendant pleaded to the simple summons, and therafter did not arrive at the trial, can default judgment be granted against him? Did the pleadings ever close? Were his rights waived by pleading? I'd love your opinion. Thanks - Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hi Lurine
    In light of the changed wording of the other summonses it is strange.However rule 1(4)says that the form you use for this purpose must in all respects conform to Form 3. I think you should deal with it in the following practical manner: Use the exact Form 3 as in the rules but add the address of the court at the top of the form where the clerk or registrar is to sign. Alternatively attach an annexure to the form with the address of the court.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Hi Ryan
    By pleading, the defendant has accepted that the summons was in order. (If not, the defendant should have withheld the plea and applied in terms of r60A to set it aside as an irregular pleading)

    After the plea, the plaintiff had 15 days to reply. New r21A says that the pleadings must be regarded as closed where the last day to reply passed and no reply was filed.(If a reply was filed, one of the other sub-rules of r21A must be applied) If all else fails, plaintiff can apply to court to declare the pleadings closed.See r21A(d).

    Within fifteen days after the close of pleadings, the plaintiff may apply for a hearing date and set the matter down. If this has been properly done and the defendant does not appear,r32(2)alows the court to grant judgment against the defendant after hearing (or reading on affidavit)evidence that the court deems neccesary.

    Thanks for your contribution.
    Regards
    Ettienne

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hi, application for recission in terms of section 36 in bellvile mag court. Filed intention to oppose. For tactical reasons want to wait as long as possible to file answering affidavite. Not sure if they must demand in terms of rule 60 or can I file the day before the application is heard. Regards Jack

    ReplyDelete
  66. Maybe slightly off blog - Cape High Court Matter

    I have received various notices and would like your advice:

    Rule 35 – as I understand it if I don’t react to this I will receive a demand giving me a certain amount of days to comply – is that correct?

    Rule 37 – from the documents I have received it would appear as if they intend placing the matter on the role for Mid 2012 – do I have to react to this notice at this time – or can I wait until early next year??

    Rule 37A questionare – I only reply to this a day before the preconference trial

    Regards
    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  67. Good day Ettien

    Did the form/document of the NOTICE OF BAR change at all with regards to the new Magistrate court rules? Exept for the year and Registrar instead of clerk, can the old document be used ( 5days...etc) ?

    Thank you,

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi Ettienne

    You seem to be a guru at the new rules.

    Here is my scenario:

    In a MVA i pleaded and counterclaimed for an amount of R175k in the Mag Court. The opposing attorney has now called and stated that i need to withdraw my counterclaim as it is incorrect in that the court does not have jurisdiction over such a large amount.

    I was under the impression that the monetary increase with the rules change was applicable to both District and Regional courts. Am i incorrect?

    And if i am, it there a procedure to transfer the matter to Regional Court?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hi Ettienne

    Thank you for the help and insight on this site.

    Please advise what the position is with pretrials in the Mag court, ie: are they mandatory?

    Thanking you in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hi Ettienne

    I attended the New magistrates court rules seminar in Johannesburg last year and you were the facilitator.

    Does the magistrate's court have an unlimited jurisdiction with regard to eviction matters.

    ReplyDelete