Ex parte Vally: In re Bhoolay v Netherlands Insurance Co of SA Ltd and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Ex parte Vally: In re Bhoolay v Netherlands Insurance Co of SA Ltd and Another
1972 (1) SA 184 (W)

1972 (1) SA p184

Citation	1972 (1) SA 184 (W)
Court	Witwatersrand Local Division
Judge	Galgut J
Heard	August 18, 1971
Judgment	August 18, 1971

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Practice — Pleadings — Further particulars — Request for not a pleading. G

Headnote : Kopnota

A request for further particulars is not a pleading in terms of the Rules of Court.

Case Information

Application in terms of Rule of Court 30 (1) to set aside a third party notice. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

A. I. Katz, for the applicant (third party).

A. Chaskalson, for the respondent (defendant). H

Judgment

Galgut, J.:

This is an application in terms of Rule 30 (1) of the Uniform Rules of Court to set aside a third party notice.

The plaintiff in the action was a passenger in a motor car which, at the time of the collision, was being driven by one Vally. The driver of the other motor vehicle was one Aron Shyshawa. The latter vehicle is the insured vehicle in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 29 of

1972 (1) SA p185

Galgut J

1942. Plaintiff sued only the insurance company. The defendant, having received the combined summons, entered appearance to defend. In November, 1970 it filed a request for further particulars. These were furnished only in April, 1971. Thereafter the defendant, concurrently A with its plea and pursuant to Rule 13 (3), served a third party notice on the said Vally. Rule 13 (3) reads:

'The third party notice shall be served before or concurrently with the delivery of the first pleading delivered by the party issuing it in the action in connection with which it is issued and shall be accompanied by a copy of all pleadings filed in the action up to the date of service.'

B The said Vally now applies to set aside that notice on the ground that it does not comply with Rule 13 (3). It is urged that a request for particulars is a pleading; that the third party notice was served after the request for further particulars and the reply thereto; that it was not

'served before or concurrently with the delivery of the first pleading delivered by'

the defendant as required by Rule 13 (3).

C Reliance for this contention was placed on the dicta in Dinath v Du Toit, N.O., 1969 (4) SA 165 (N), where the learned Judge held that a request for further...