SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DICISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 37159/2020
In the matter between:
MTHELELI CONRADE PASIYA Applicant
and
THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Respondent
In re:
THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Plaintiff
MTHELELI CONRADE PASIYA Defendant
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulating to the parties or their legal
representatives by email and by uploading the judgment onto CaseLines. The date and
time for hand down of the judgment are deemed to be 10:00 on 03 March 2026.
JUDGMENT
Matlapeng AJ
INTRODUCTION
1 This opposed application is predicated against the Particulars of Claim1 as well as
Annexure thereto, Notice of Motion 2, Founding Affidavit 3, as well as the Respondent's
Answering Affidavit 4 inclusive of Annexure thereto and as fortified by the written
submissions of the respective parties.5
2 The Applicant is Mthetheleli Conrade Pasiya, ("the Applicant"), a major male with
domicillum citandi et executandi at [...] A[...] Street, Noordwyk Midrand.6
3 The Respondent is The Standard bank of South Africa Limited ("the Respondent")
a limited company registered and incorporated in accordance with the company laws of
the Republic of South Africa having its principal place of business at […]th Floor, [...]
S[...] Street, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province.7
4 It is so that on 04 August 1994 and 08 January 2004 the Parties entered into 2
(Two) home loan agreements ("the Agreements") wherein the Respondent advanced
the sum of R117 000.00 (Hundred and Seventeen Thousand Rands) as well as R160
000.00 (Hundred and Sixty Thousand Rands) to the Applicant.8
5 It is so that the Applicant has defaulted in respect of servicing the Agreements
which prompted the Respondent to issue Summons against the Applicant for the
property described as ERF 1[...] N[...] Extension 10 Township, to be declared
executable.9
6 This application, is brought by the Applicant in terms of Uniform Rule 30 and 30A
of the Uniform Rules of Court. The Applicant bids this Court to set -aside the
Respondent's amended Particulars of Claim and a subsequent Notice of Bar.10
1 CaseLines: 001-5-24.
2 CaseLines: 008-1-3.
3 CaseLines: 008-4-7.
4 CaseLines: 011-9-20.
5 CaseLines: 020-1-6 & 012-19.
6 CaseLines: 001-5 para 2.
7 CaseLines: 001-5 para 1.
8 Caselines: 001-1-6.
9 Caselines: 001-23.
10 Caselines: 008-1.
7 In turn, the Respondent opposes the application on the basis that the amendment
was validly effected in terms of Uniform Rule 28 and more pointed, the Notice of Bar was
procedurally competent and finally, the Uniform Rule 30 and 30A launched by the
Respondent, is fatally defective for want of condonation and the absence of prejudice.
BRIEF BACKGROUND FACTS
8 It is so that on 12 August 2020 the Respondent issued Summons against the
Applicant arising from a breach of the Agreements as stated above. In response to the
Summons, the Applicant delivered his Notice of Intention to Defend on 9 September
2020.11
9 It is also so that on 8 January 2021 the Respondent served a Notice of Intention to
Amend its Particulars of Claim on the Applicant and prescribed 10 (Ten) day period for
objecting to such Notice, expired.
10 The Applicant, purported to object to the Notice on 26 January 2021 which
objection, was simultaneously followed by the filing of the amended Particulars of Claim
on 27 January 2021.
11 It is so that the Applicant is yet to file its Plea which led to the Respondent
delivering its Notice of Bar on the Respondent on 5 October 2022.12
12 Subsequent to that and on 10 October 2022 the Applicant served and filed a
Uniform Rule 30 and 30A Notice alleging that the amendment as well as the Notice of
Bar, constitute irregular steps and the formal Uniform Rule 30 application was launched
nearly 2 (Two) years after the amendment was effected.
ISSUES NOT IN DISPUTE
13 It is common cause that the Notice of Intention to amend was served on 8
January 2021 and the Applicant failed to object within the required 10 (Ten) days).
11 Caselines: 003-1-2.
12 Caselines: 007-1-2.
14 It is also common cause that the amendment was effected on 27 January 2021
and to date, the Applicant has not filed his Plea.
15 Finally, it is common cause that the Uniform Rule 30 application was brought well
beyond the required 10 (Ten) days from becoming aware of the alleged irregularity and
no condonation application accompanied the Uniform Rule 30 application.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
16 This Court is called upon to make a determination on the following issues:
16.1 Whether the Respondent's amendment was irregular in light of the
Applicant's objection?
16.2 Whether the Notice of Bar constitute an irregular step?
16.3 Whether the absence of the condonation application is fatal?
16.4 Whether the Applicant has demonstrated any prejudice?
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
17 It is so that Uniform Rule 28(2) expressly and unambiguously provides that,
unless written objection to the proposed amendment is delivered within 10 (Ten) days of
delivery of the Notice to Amend, the amendment will be effected.13
18 It is also so that Uniform Rule 28(5) provides that if no objection is delivered within
that period of 10 (Ten) days, the recipient of the Notice is deemed to have consent to the
amendment.14
19 It is also so that Uniform Rule 28(7) 15 impel a party entitle to amend to effect the
amendment by delivering the amended pages and only where a valid and timeous
13 Uniform Rule 28 (2).
14 Uniform Rule 28(5).
15 Uniform Rule 28(7).
objection is delivered, does Uniform Rule 28(4)16 require the amending party to bid leave
of the Court to effect the amendment.
20 With regards to Uniform Rule 30(1) 17, this Rule allows a party to set-aside an
irregular step which is complimented by Uniform Rule 30(2)(b)18 which impel an applicant
to deliver his notice of objection, within 10 (Ten) days from becoming aware of the
irregularity.
21 The Rule requires prompt action and no further step to be taken with the
knowledge of the irregularity by the other party who must demonstrate prejudice.
ANALYSIS
22 The Applicant contends that the Respondent effected the amendment despite the
Applicant filing an objection and that, the Respondent failed to apply for leave to amend
which made the Notice of Bar irregular.
23 It is also the Applicant's contention that Uniform Rule 28(4), requires the
Respondent to approach the Court once an objection is delivered. This argument,
ignores a fundamental defect, which is that the objection was out of time as the
amendment was effected and the Applicant is barred and no application for the
upliftment of Bar was prosecuted by the Applicant.
24 For its part, the Respondent submitted that it was well within its right to effect the
amendment due to the Applicant's failure to timeously object to the Notice to
Amendment and more pointed, the Applicant remained in default to Plea due to the
Notice of Bar which pass master as it was received by the Applicant and ignored.
25 Finally, it was the Respondent's submissions that the current application is late by
over 2 (Two) years and the Applicant failed to accompany the application with a
condonation application and that no prejudice was demonstrated by the Applicant.
26 It is so that the Applicant failed to object to the amendment within the prescribed
16 Uniform Rule 28(4).
17 Uniform Rule 30(1).
18 Uniform Rule 30(2)(b).
10 (Ten) days and failed to apply for condonation for the late objection.
27 It is also so that the Applicant failed to file a Plea for almost 2 (Two) years and
waited until the service of the Notice of Bar, before raising procedural complaints.
28 The Applicant also failed to bid the Court to grant him condonation for the Rule 30
application. Litigation is not a tactical game of delay. The Uniform Rules exist to secure
the expeditious and inexpensive resolution of disputes.
29 It is so that the Uniform Rule 30 procedure, is not designed as a shield for dilatory
litigants. It exists to remove procedural hinderances and not to manufacture them.
30 The Applicant's conduct, demonstrates an attempt to avoid joining issue in the
merits while exploiting technicalities long after the time for raising them has since
expired.
31 Such conduct, is inconsistent with the duty of litigants to assist the Court in the
proper administration of justice. There is no prejudice that has been demonstrated by the
Applicant on the facts before the Court.
32 When one examines the amendment , it did not alter the cause of action which is
mounted on the failure of the Applicant to make payment on the Agreements which led
to his default.
33 The Applicant remains free to lift the Bar then plead, raise exceptions and defend
the claim on the merits which is in contrast with the Respondent who has suffered
ongoing delay in prosecuting its claim against the Applicant.
34 The amendment was validly effected by the Respondent in terms of Uniform Rule
28(5) which was complimented by the Notice of Bar which the Court finds was
procedurally competent.
35 With regards to the Uniform Rule 30 application, this Court finds that it was brought
out of the prescribed periods and the failure to contemporaneously bring a condonation
application, is fatal to the Applicant's case.
36 The Rule 30 application, is enrolled out of time and is not properly before the Court
without an application for condonation showing cause why it was not prosecuted within
the prerequisite period in terms of the Uniform Rules.
37 It stands to reason that a party who has not complied with the Uniform Rules
applicable in this Court, must explain the basis for non-compliance.
38 In sum, there is no prejudice demonstrated and the application is fatally defective
and devoid of merit.
COSTS
39 What remains is the issue of costs. In my view there are no circumstances which
warrant a deviation from the general rule that costs follow the event.
ORDER
40 In the circumstances, I make the following Order:
40.1 The application is dismissed with costs and on Scale B.
MT MATLAPENG
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Attorneys
Applicant's Counsel: Professor Mtizi.
Applicant's Attorneys: Snail Attorneys @ Law.
Respondent's Counsel: M Ramabulana-Mathiba.
Respondent's Attorneys: Ramsay Webber.
Date of Hearing:
Date of Judgment:
28 October 2025.
04 March 2026.