ABSA Bank v Gary Murray

ABSA Bank instituted action proceedings against Gary Murray by way of a simple summons. The defendant delivered a plea. On the eve of trial, the defendant sought and obtained a postponement. The postponement order allowed the defendant to effect amendments by a specified date. Relying on that order, the defendant delivered an amended plea without following the procedure prescribed by Uniform Rule 28, and without filing an affidavit, despite the amendment arguably withdrawing earlier admissions. ABSA objected and brought an interlocutory application under Uniform Rule 30(1) to set aside the amended plea as an irregular step. It also emerged that ABSA had not filed a declaration after the defendant entered an appearance to defend, rendering the pleadings procedurally defective.

The defendant’s amended plea was set aside as an irregular step. The plaintiff was directed to take steps to regularise its pleadings in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Court before requiring the defendant to plead. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs of the Rule 30 application.

The judgment clarifies the interaction between Uniform Rules 20, 28 and 30, emphasising that proper sequencing of pleadings is fundamental. It underscores that a postponement order permitting amendments does not automatically override the amendment procedure in Rule 28 or deprive an opposing party of the right to object. The case highlights the court’s discretionary power under Rule 30 to remove procedural hindrances to litigation and reinforces the obligation on plaintiffs to file a declaration when a simple summons is opposed.