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
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case no: 12286/2024
In the matter between:
BASELINE ICT SERVICES Plaintiff
(Registration No: 2016/274071/07)
and
MICHELLE LE GRANGE Defendant
(Identity No: 7[...])
Neutral citation: Baseline ICT Services (Pty) Ltd v Michelle Le Grange (Case
no 12286/2024) [2026] ZAWCHC (17 June 2026)
Coram: JUSTICE N MAYOSI
Heard: 15 June 2026
Delivered electronically: 17 June 2026
Summary: Default judgment in terms of Rule 31(5).
ORDER
1. The application for default judgment is dismissed with costs, including
the costs of counsel where so employed, on scale A.
2. The defendant shall file her plea within 10 days of receipt of this order.
JUDGMENT
Mayosi J:
[1] The plaintiff seeks default judgment against the defendant in an amount
of R 1666 321,35 in terms of Rule 31(5) , arising from the defendant’s failure to
deliver a plea.
[2] The action against the defendant was commenced by a c ombined
summons that was served on the defendant on 17 July 2024. The defendant
entered a notice of intention to defend on 24 July 2024.
[3] A notice of bar was served on the defendant on 23 Augu st 2024, in
response to which she filed her plea on 28 August 2024.
[4] After the plaintiff raised an exception to the defendant’s plea, the merits
of the exception were argued before this Court on 29 May 2025. In a judgment
that was delivered on 18 June 2025, per Mantame J, the plaintiff’s exception
was upheld and the defendant’s plea was struck out in its entirety.
[5] On 2 Ma rch 2026, the plaintiff transmitted by email to the defendant a
notice of set down for th e hearing of this application. The notice so transmitted
did not include the application for default judgment itself. After the defendant
requested a copy of the default judgment application, a n unsigned and undated
copy of the notice of the application only, excluding any accompanyi ng
affidavit, was transmitted to the defendant’s attorneys on the same day . The
defendant was told that the signed documents could be found in the court file.
However, when her attorneys of record attended at court to draw the court and
access the default judgment application, it was not contained in the court file.
[6] On 6 March 2026 the defendant delivered her notice of intention to
oppose this application. This was followed by an opposing affidavit by the
defendant, which was delivered on 27 March 2026. Both documents were
absent from the bundle of documents that was placed before th is Court by the
plaintiff for this default judgment application.
[7] The application for default judgment is accompanied by an affidavit in
support thereof deposed to by a representative of the plaintiff. That supporting
affidavit refers to three annexures purportedly in support of the monetary
amount claimed by the plaintiff in the action, for amount judgment by default is
sought. However, these three annexures - described as a schedule of payments;
proof of bank account of the defendant and a proof of payments - are not
attached to the supporting affidavit and are, as a result, not before this Court.
[8] The default judgment application therefore is not complete, lacking it
does documents said to be in support of the very claim that the plaintiff
advances in this application.
[9] In her opposition to this application the defendant has filed two affidavits.
In her first affidavit she seeks to explain the reasons why she has failed to file a
plea after her first plea was struck out in its entirety. According to the
defendant, the plaintiff in addition to th e civil action also filed a criminal
complaint against her arising from the same alleged fraud ulent conduct that is
alleged in the action, and from which the damages claim arises. The criminal
alleged in the action, and from which the damages claim arises. The criminal
proceedings against her are currently underway, and she has made some 15
appearances in those proceedings. In the context of those criminal proceedings
the defendant was advised by her attorneys there that it might be possible to
enter into a plea deal with the plaintiff which deal would allow for settlement to
be reached that would dispose of both the criminal and civil matters. Although
the plaintiff’s attorneys were initially in favour of such discussions, this position
seems to have changed. In these circumstances , the defendant nevertheless
advised her attorneys of record in the civil matter to take no further steps in the
action until the settlement issues had been finalised in the criminal matter.
[10] I am not convinced that an exercise of my discretion in favour of granting
judgment by default in these circumstance advances the interests of justice.
First, the application for default judgment is incomplete and so the defendant
has been called to court to answer a case, which she opposes , whose papers are
not complete. This is prejudicial to her in the context of the default judgment
application. Second, there is potential to settle the civil matter. Third, even were
there to be no settlement of the action , the plaintiff remains with remedie s,
which it can pursue instantly, to compel the defendant to take further steps in
the action. These remedies include, but are not limited to, placing the defendant
under bar in terms of Rule 26. Fourth, in the face of the remedies available to
the plaintiff, the prejudice to the defendant in granting default against her in the
circumstances would be greater than the prejudice to the plaintiff in not granting
this application.
[11] It is in order to minimise the prejudice to the plaintiff’s interest s in the
action that I make the order requiring the defendant to file her plea within a
given period of time, so that the next step in progressing the action can occur.
Conclusion
[12] The following order is then made:
1. The application for default judgment is dismissed with costs,
including the costs of counsel where so employed, on scale A.
2. The defendant shall file her plea within 10 days of receipt of this
order.
_____________________________
N T MAYOSI
Judge of the High Court
Appearances
For plaintiff: Ms Caitlin Stransky
Instructed by: Bam Attorneys, Cape Town
For defendant: Mr J Scherman
Instructed by: Sherman & Associates, Cape Town