REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
Case No: 20 23/013189
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
QUANE MOKOKA APPLICANT /PLAINTIFF
AND
JP MARKETS (PTY) LTD 1st RESPON DENT/ DEFENDANT
JUSTIN PAULSEN 2nd RESPOND ENT/ DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
SIWENDU J
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
) REPORTABLE: NO
) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
) REVISED : YES/ NO
13.05.2025
DATE SIGNATURE
Introd uction
[1] This is an application for an order to strike out a defence in terms of Rule
21(4) of th e Uniform Rule s. It was enrolle d on the opposed motion court during
the week of 3 February 2025 but heard on 5 February 2025.
[2] The genesis of the application is that Mr Quane Mokoka (Mr Mokoka) , as
the plaintiff, instituted an action against the defe ndants, JP Markets SA (Pty) Ltd
(JP Markets) and Mr Justin Paulsen (Mr Paulsen) , which is opposed , Mr Mokaka
is the applicant, and the defendants are the respondent s in the present application .
[2] Mr Mokoka alleges he is the founder o f Quane Forex Institute (Pty) Ltd
and “a full time technical and fundamental forex trader and a client of the first
defendant , JP Markets , a forex brokerage firm . He alleges the banking accounts
of JP Markets were frozen in 2020 and his MT4 trading account removed from
the JP Markets dashboard in 2020 by Justin Paulsen.
[3] He instituted the action a gainst JP Markets in Feb ruary 2023, claiming the
unpaid KWD 87 536.72 on 22/07/2020 and KWD 1 039.55 on 31/05/2020. He
alleges that a t the time the exchange rate was 1KWD R54.64 totalling , R 4 840
232.55 (Four million, eight hundred and forty thousand rands, two hundred and
thirty two rands, fifty five cents) . According to Mr Mokoka , JP Markets made
promises to pay his o utstanding withdrawal requests of May 2020 and of July
2020 but have failed to do so.
[4] The action between the applicant and the respondent has a protracted
history . There have been at list ten (10 ) Court orders issued in respect of a several
opposed interlocu tory disputes , pertaining to discovery, security for costs,
summary judgment between 13 D ecember 2023 to 5 February 2024 , and on issues
not immediately apparent from the orders granted .
[5] As an indication of the difficulties in prosecuting the dispute, on:
i. 13th of December 2023 , Mkhabela J granted the foll owing order against the
applicant:
“1. The matter is struck from the roll ;
2. The Plaintiff is prohibited from setting any matters down in the interlocutory and/or
motion court without full and proper compliance with the Rules of the court, an d
without a formal and proper application before the Court;
3. The costs are reserved. ”
ii. 22 July 2024 Wright J made the following observations and order :
“Having heard Mr Mokoka in person and Ms Adams for the respondents, I have no
idea what case it is that am supposed to hear. Both sides make very serious allegations
against each other relating to procedure.
In these unfortunate circumstances, have no matter, whatever it is, from the roll.
Costs are reserved. ”
[6] However, o n 12 August 2 024, the applicant successfully obtained and order
before Liversage AJ in the following terms :
“That the Respondents to be ordered to comply with the Applicant notice in terms Rule 35 (1)
(6) (8) (10) Discovery notice served on 1 March 2024 within the period of 5 (FIVE) days . That
the Respondents to pay costs. ”
[7] In at least seven ins tances , the application s which served before Mali J,
Malungana AJ , Adams J , L. Steyn AJ , Wijnbeek AJ , Senyatsi J and Opperman J
were either (a) struck or (b) removed from the roll . In some i nstances, the
applicant was ordered to pay the costs , while in others, costs were reserved.
[8] An order granted against Mr Mokoka by Wijnbeek AJ on 15 April 2024 ,
striking an application from the roll resulted in a complaint to the Judicial Service
Commission (JSC) to investigate “the alleged irregularity of Acting Judge .”
[9] Its appea rs that this application was set down in the unopposed motion
before Mali J and Malungana AJ but had to be removed from the roll because of
a dispute about whether it was brough t regularly and was before the co rrect forum
since it was opposed. When the application was allocated to this Court for
hearing, the papers were in disarray and Direc tives requiring the fili ng of a
Practice Note could not be located . The case the C ourt was called upon to
adjudicate not clear.
[10] The Resp ondent ’s atto rneys wrote to the office of the Judge President for
seeking intervention and assist ance to resolve the bundle and proper allocation.
The exchange of correspondence raised the ire of Mr Mokoka who levelled
accusations again st the attorneys for the respondent on sev eral grounds. Given
this history of the matter, I directed the parties to compile the relevant application
bundle to assist expedite the resolution of the issue .
[11] Mr Mokoka is an unrepresented litigant and appeared in person d uring the
hearing . The first and second respondents were re presented by Mr Burnett , acting
as the local correspondents’ attorneys of record for the respo ndents. As will be
apparent in due course , Mr Mokoka requires proper legal representation to ensure
that this matter can proceed expeditiously and efficiently.
In this Court
[12] Mr Moko ka confirmed , he seeks an order to strike out the respondents’
defence in terms of Rule 21 (4 ). Rule 21 in the relevant p arts states that:
“(1) Subject to the provisions of subrules (2) to (4) further particulars shall not be requested.
(2) After the close of pleadings 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. Such request shall be complied with within 10 days after receipt thereof.
…..
(4) If the party requested to furnish any particulars as aforesaid fails to deliver them timeously
or sufficiently, the party requesting the same may apply to court for an order for their delivery
or for the dismissal of the action or the striking out of the defence, whereupon the court may
make such order as to it seems meet. ”
[13] He alleges the respondents failed to provide further partic ulars for trial in
terms of a notice served on th em in March 2024 , and simultaneously sought an
order for payment of the amount claimed in the summons . He alleg es further that
that the respondent made an undertaking to pro vide the particu lars but failed to
do so . The information formi ng the subject of the further particulars requested
appears in Mr Mokoka’s founding affidavit , in support of the Rule 21(4)
application wherein he states that:
“3 On the 1" of March 2024 the Applicant notice in terms of Rule 21 (2) notice requesting for
further particulars was served on the Respondents, seven (7) months have passed and the
Respondents has neglected, refused, and failed to provide the requested furthe r particulars.
4. On 15 March 2024, the Respondents promised to provide the further particulars on 22 March
2024 if the Plaintiff remove several notices from the court online.
……
9. The Respondents they are depriving Applicant access to the trading history of its trading
records and intentionally they also refuse to re -instate the Applicant JP Markets MT4 trading
account. They are afraid that doing so will demolish their vexatious defense .
10. The Respondents they have Reset the Applicant JP Markets Dashboard therefore, the
Dashboard indicates that there is no trading history for the account and there is no trading
account. They do not want the Applicant to get trading History and the withdrawal History
because it will demolish their vexatious defense. ”
[14] It bears mention that before the set do wn of th e present application, on 12
August 2 024, Mr Mokoka successfully obtained an order in terms of Rule 35
before Liversage AJ, compelling the respondents to discover certain document s
pertaining hi s trading account .
[15] The respondents delivered their discovery affidavit dated 6 September
2024 , followed by a “supplementary discovery affidavit ” on 30 September 2024 .
Mr Mokoka ’s practice note makes several allegations about the adequacy of the
disco very and the cond uct of the respondents in relation to his trading account .
[16] It appe ars that on the 3 October 2024 , the parties held a Pre-trial
Conference , but Mr Herman Bonnet who atte nded on behalf of the respondents
allegedly had no instructions regarding Mr Mokoka ’s request s for furth er
particu lars.
[17] On the 10 October 2024 Mr Mokoka set down this application in terms of
Rule 21 (4) to strike out the respondent's defense. On the 24 October 2024 the
respondent s opposed it and filed an answering affidavit . The application had to
be remov ed because heads of argument had not been filed in terms of this court ’s
Practice Directive No.1 of 2024 .
[18] The respondent ’s opposing af fidavit , deposed to by Mr Nicholas David
Poole (in th e capacity as dire ctor of JP Markets) claims that the request for
particulars was premature and procedurally flawed. Pleadings had not yet closed
(litis contestation had not been reached ) and there was a p ending security for costs
application befo re court, and action had been stay ed pending determi nation of
that question . The respondents had discovered documents required to enable t he
applicant to proceed . If Mr Mokoka is dissatisfied , his recourse is in the discovery
rules rather than in Rule 21 .
[19] Mr Mokoka informed the court that the respondents cannot rely on the
discovery affidavit to avoid the request for particu lars for trial. To this, the
respondent s’ Counsel s ubmitted that Mr Mokoka ’s Notice is r iddled with
irregularities . It refers to Rule 55 of the Magistrates Court Rule which is not
applicable to this Court. Fu rthermore , in April 2024, the Mr Mokoka filed a
Notice in term s of Rule 30(1) removing “regular notice s” including Rule 21
notice and the Notice to strike out sought to be relied upon. The removal would
mean s there is no application for the court to adju dicate.
[20] Counsel further submitted that the respondents filed a discovery affidavit
followed by ‘’supplementary discovery affidavit .’’ The documents required by Mr
Mokoka i n respect of the request for further particu lars were made available to
him in a schedule annexed to the supplementary discovery affidavit , on the
strength of the conten ts of the Rule 21 notice which had been removed . The
correctness of this submission is in doubt . A more compelling reason for filing
the discovery affidavi t is that Mr Mokok a had a court order compelling discovery.
Although I accept that the documents supplied were in the request for further
particu lars, it is inco nceivable that the respo ndents would purport to comply with
a Notice which they with the same breath claim was r emoved and no longer
before the court.
[21] Nevertheless , Mr Mokoka dispute d that the notice was removed . I must
observe that Mr Mokoka has the penchant t o use belligerent language to address
disagre ements. Referring to the att orneys and counsel as “scand alous ,”
“libelous ”, “deceptive ”, obstructive .” He submitted that what was removed was
a Novembe r and previous Rule 21 Notice and not the notice he relies on.
[22] Despite the court ’s directive and request to the parties to arrange the court
papers in a manner that would enable it to adjudicate the case, the request was
met with more confusion , counter accusat ions and a lack of cooperation . Mr
Mokoka uploaded or removed or re -arranged papers in a manner that interfered
with the paginated sequence on Case Lines . This was e vident during the hearing
as parties struggled to loca te the papers, consuming more of the court ’s time.
[23] There was a dispute on wh ether the Rule 21 Notice was removed and if so,
which w as removed. Reliance was placed on various documents not fully set out
in the founding affidavit, with submissions made from the ba r to refer to the
notice that was removed.
[24] There is no dispute that Mr Mokoka relies on the notice delivered in March
2024 and the accompanying affidavit as the basis on which the cour t must
adjudicate the matter . The Respondents took further steps in respect the matter
despite allegations of irregularity . Counsel submitted it was to assist Mr Mokoka .
[25] It is evident from the rule that the request f or further particulars must be
“strictly necessary ” to prepare for tria l. As the court held in Thompson v Barclays
Bank DCO1 the purpose f or a request for particu lars is to (a) prevent surprise;
(b) that the parties should be told with greater precision what the other party is
going to prove in order to enable his opponent to prepare his case to combat
counter -allegations; (c) having regard to the above, nevertheless not to tie t he
other party down and limit his (or her) case unfairly at the trial.
[26] As Erasmus in Superior Court Practice 2 points out, in most cases “it would
probably be wholly insufficient for a party seeking relief under rule 21(4) to rely
solely upon the other party’s failure to timeously comply with the request for
further particulars. ” The court’s power and a discretion whether to grant an order
striking out a defence where there has been failure to supply further particulars
but that “discretion is not limited to cases of contumacy. ”
[27] As repeatedly held, the Court has the power to regulate its process and may
in the i nterests of justice depart from its own rules .3 I am minded that Mr Mokoka
represents himself and the interest s of justice may require that in the exercise of
its discretion; the court adopts a benevolent approach to the non-compliance ,
which it has by entertaining the hearing. At the same time, the rules are made for
courts to facilitate the adjudication of cases .
1 1965 1 SA 365 (W) 369C−E
2 RS 25, 2024, D1 Rule 21 -2
3 These principles appear in several decisions (see PFE International Inc (BVI) and others v Industrial
Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd,
[28] While I accept Mr Mok oka’s contention that the purpose of discovery is
distinct from the request for further particulars for trial, the affidavit Mr Mokoka
relies on is defect ive in that :
a. The Notice of Application is irregular and refers to Magistrates Court Rule
55 which does not regulate the p roceedings before court.
b. The substance of the complaint conflates the grievances about the quality
and adequacy of the discovery (which appears to have been resolved by the
filing of the supplem entary discovery a ffidavit and has its distinct reme dy)
with the request for further particulars as the reasons for seeking the
striking out of the defence .
c. The further particulars requested for trial are not framed in a manner that
directs the question s the respondents must answer, or assist distil the
dispute d question s or evidence that must be admitted or disputed ,
necess ary to prove or disprove a disputed issue.
d. In som e instances, Mr Mokaka seeks positive steps to b e taken by the
respondents , which are outside the ambit of the Rule
[29] An order striking out the defen ce in the present circumstances cannot be
granted and would be prejudicial to the respondents . The non -compliance with
the requirements of the rule is egregious.
[30] What remains is the question of costs. What stands out is Mr Mokoka ’s
refusal to co -operate with the respondents to file a joint practice note and assist
the court alleviate the need to troll through reems of unnecessary material so that
his application is heard. The respondents offered assistance which was not taken
up. The costs must follow the result.
In the result, I make the following order:
a. The applicant to strike out the defence is dismissed
b. The applicant is ordered to p ay the respondents ’ costs on Scale B
_________ _______
NTY SIWENDU
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
This Judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Applicant’s Legal
Representative and the Respondents by email, publication on Case Lines. The date for the
handing down is deemed 1 3 May 2025
Date of appearance: 0 5 Februa ry 2025
Date Judgment delivered: 13 May 2025
Appearances:
For the Applicant : Quane Mokoka (In person)
For the Respondents: Mr Herman Bonnet
Instructed by Hanekom Attorneys
c/o
Burger Husyer Attorneys