IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
JUDGMENT
In the matter between:
JOEY VAN DER WALT
and
BURGERT WYNAND DU PLESSIS
Neutral citation:
Coram:
Heard:
Mgengwana; AJ
3 March2026
Delivered: 4 June 2026
Not Reportable
Case no: 2025-140138
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
Summary: Summary Judgement Application - Rule 32 of the Uniform
Rules of Court - Whether the electronic mail sent to Plaintiff by the
Defendant on 23 September 2025 complies with Rule 22 of the Uniform
Rules of Court and should therefore be accepted as Defendant's Plea -
Whether Rule 18( 1) has been complied with.
ORDER
[l] In the result, I grant the following order:
[1 .1] Application for summary judgment is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
MGENGWANA; AJ
2
Judgement handed down: The judgement is handed down electronically by
circulating to the parties or legal representatives by email. The date for the
handing down of the judgment is deemed to be 4 June 2026.
3
Introduction
[1] This is a summary judgment application in which the Plaintiff is
seeking an Order against the Defendant on the following terms:
(a) Payment ofR70 800.00
(b) Interest on the aforesaid amount a tempora morae; and
( c) Costs of suit.
Background
[2] Subsequent to defending Plaintiff's Combined Summons herein the
Defendant sent an email setting out his defence to Plaintiffs Particulars of
Claim on 23 September 2025. This email was followed by another email sent
on 7 November 2025 in which the Defendant indicated that he sent his Plea to
Plaintiff's attorneys on 23 September 2025, in the same email, the Defendant
asked whether the Plaintiff sought the said email to be sent to her in another
format. He also alleged in the same email that he sent a counterclaim by email
to Plaintiff's attorneys on 13 October 2025. In this email, the Defendant asked
again whether the counterclaim is sought in another format. There is no
indication that the email of 7 November 2025 was responded to. What this
Court knows is that on 27 November 2025, a Summary Judgment Application
was served on the Defendant.
4
Issues to be determined
[3] This Court is being called upon to determine whether the electronic
mail sent to Plaintiff by the Defendant on 23 September 2025 complies with
the Uniform Rules of this Court and should therefore be accepted as
Defendant's Plea and if yes, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a Summary
Judgment in terms of Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of this Court.
Applicable Law
[4] Rule 22 of the Uniform Rules of Court, which governs a Plea, states the
following:
(1) Where a defendant has delivered notice of intention to defend, he shall within 20
days after the service upon him of a declaration or within 20 days after delivery
of such notice in resp ect of a combined summons, deliver a plea with or without
a claim in reconvention, or an exception with or without application to strike out.
(2) The defendant shall in his plea either admit or deny or confess and avoid all the
material facts alleged in the combined summons or declaration or state which of
the said facts are not admitted and to what extent, and shall clearly and concisely
state all material facts upon which he relies.
(3) Every allegation of fact in the combined summons or declaration which is not
stated in the plea to be denied or to be admitted, shall be deemed to be admitted.
If any explanation or qualification of any denial is necessary, it shall be stated in
the plea.
( 4) If by reason of any claim in reconvention, the defendant claims that on the giving
of judgment on such claim, the plaintiffs claim will be extinguished either in
whole or in part, the defendant may in his plea refer to the fact of such claim in
reconvention and request that judgment in respect of the claim or any portion
5
thereof which would be extinguished by such claim in reconvention, be
postponed until judgment on the claim in reconvention . Judgment on the claim
shall, either in whole or in part, thereupon be so postponed unless the court, upon
the application of any person interested, otherw ise orders ; but the court, if no
other defence has been raised, may give judgment for such part of the claim as
would not be extinguished, as if the defendant were in default of filing a plea in
respect thereof, or may, on the application of either party, make such order as to
it seems meet.
(5) If the defendant fails to comply with any of the provisions of sub rules (2) and (3),
such plea shall be deemed to be an irregular step and the other party shall be
entitled to act in accordance with rule 30.
[5] In FSP Ltd v Trident Construction (Pty) Ltd Eksteen JA stated the
following:
"One of the prime functions of pleadings is to clarify the issues between the parties . To this
end the Rules of Court require the defendant in his plea to:
'Admit or deny, or confess and avoid all the material facts alleged in the combined summons
or declaration or state which of the said facts are not admitted and to what extent .. .'
(Rule 22(2)) A defendant must therefore give a fair and clear answer to every point of
substance raised by a plaintiff in his declaration or particulars of claim, by frankly admitting
or explicitly denying every material matter alleged against him.''1
[6] In Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Bodiker & Co (SA) Solomon JA stated the
following:
"(t)he duty of the defendant then is to set forth his defence with sufficient ~recision
to enable the plaintiff to ascertain what the defence is"2
[7] The following is also stated in the Second Edition of Erasmus Superior
Court Practice:
1 1989 (3) SA 537 (AD) at para 54 I J -542 B
2 1925 AD 316 at 321
6
"A plea must end with a prayer, either for judgment against the plaintiff or for the
dism issal of plaintiffs claim, presumably with costs."3
[8] Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court also states that all pleadings
shall be signed by the party himself if the party defends personally.
[9] Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court, which governs Summary
Judgment Applications, states the following:
"{l) The plaintiff may, after the defendant has delivered a plea, apply to
court for summary judgment on each of such claims in the summons as is
only-
(a) on a liquid document;
(b) for a liquidated amount in money;
( c) for delivery of specified movable property;
(d) or for ejectment,
together with any claim for interest and costs.
(2)
(a) Within 15 days after the date of delivery of the plea, the plaintiff
shall deliver a notice of application for summary judgment, together with
an affidavit made by the plaintiff or by any other person who can swear
positively to the facts.
(b) The plaintiff shall, in the affidavit referred to in sub-rule (2)(a)
verify the cause of action and the amount, if any, claimed, and identify any
point of law relied upon and the facts upon which the plaintiff's claim is
based, and explain briefly why the defence as pleaded does not raise any
issue for trial.
3 Erasmus Superior Court Practice, Volume 2, Second Edition by D.E. Van Loggerenburg at D1-270
7
( c) If the claim is founded on a liquid document a copy of the document
shall be annexed to such affidavit and the notice of application for summary
judgment shall state that the application will be set down for hearing on a
stated day not being less than 15 days from the date of the delivery thereof.
Application of the Law to the facts
[10] In terms of Rule 32(1), the plaintiff can only apply for Summary
Judgment within a period of fifteen days after the delivery of a plea upon him
or her. So, what needs to be determined herein is whether a plea was delivered
by the Defendant herein and when.
[11] To assist the Court in coming to a determination in this respect, let us
look at the affidavit deposed to by the Plaintiff in support of the Summary
Judgment Application. From paragraph 23 of the said affidavit the Plaintiff
states the following:
"On 23 Septemb er 2025, the Defendant filed a document in response to my
particulars of claim. I annex a copy of the document, which was in the form of an e
mail, as annexure "JVDWl". As the aforesaid document is not in the form of a plea,
upon my attorney of record's enquiry, the defentiant confirmed on 7 November 2025
that annexure "JVDWl" hereto should be accepted as his plea (it is accordingly
herein below referred to as "the Defendant's plea"). In substantiation of the aforesaid,
l include the self-explanatory e-mail from the Defendant in this regard as annexure
"JVDW2".
[12] The aforementioned email was written in Afrikaans and its rough
8
translation is as follows:
"Your plea" I already emailed this to you on 23 September . Do you want it in another format?"
[13] This email from the Defendant, which was formulated as a question,
was never responded to by the Plaintiffs attorneys. Therefore based on the
contents thereof, this Court finds that the email of 7 November 2025 was not
a confirmation that the email of 23 September 2025 should be accepted as
Defendant's plea, but it was rather a question whether the email itself is
acceptable as a plea in its current format or is it required in another format but
unfortunately the Defendant never received a response to his question.
[14] Besides the aforegoing, the email of 23 September 2025 cannot be
accepted as a plea as it does not comply with Rule 22(2) & (3) in that it does
not deal with all the material facts alleged in the combined summons. The
email neither contains a prayer at the end nor does it comply with Rule 18(1)
as it is not signed by the Defendant.
[15] This Court is also fortified by a paragraph stating the following in its
finding that the email is not a plea:
"Laat weet my of u nog wil voortgaan om my te vervolg sodat ek my teeneis
teen haar kan voorberei" which roughly translates to "Let me know if you still
want to continue to pursue me so that I can prepare my counterclaim against
her."
The email then goes further to give an explanation why the Defendant believes
9
that he has a counterclaim against the Plaintiff.
[16] Therefore, based on all of the above, this Court's finding that the email
of 23 September 2025 is not a plea is not based on the form of the email only
but it is also based on the fact that even the substance of the email itself does
not have the salient features of a plea which are to deny, admit or confess and
avoid.
[17] Having found that the email of 23 September 2025 is not a plea, this
Court also finds that Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Application was instituted
prematurely.
In the result, I grant the following order:
[18] Application for summary judgment is dismissed with costs.
I
I Acting Judge of the High ourt
APPEARANCES:
For the plaintiff:
Instructed by:
For the Defendant:
Mr. R.J. Steyn
Faure & Faure Inc.
Ms. M. Meinjties
In person
10