Motloung and Another v The Sheriff, Pretoria East and Others

The appellants were injured in a motor vehicle collision in January 2007 and instructed attorneys to institute an action against the Road Accident Fund. A combined summons was prepared, allocated a case number by the registrar, stamped and dated, but not signed by the registrar. The sheriff (respondent) refused to serve the summons on the basis that it was a nullity because it lacked the registrar’s signature. As a result, the appellants’ RAF claim prescribed. The appellants then sued the sheriff for damages, alleging negligence in failing to serve the summons. The sheriff raised a special plea that the unsigned summons was a nullity and not capable of service. The High Court upheld the special plea, holding that the summons was void. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the special plea with costs and directing the defendant to pay the costs arising from the exception, including the costs of two counsel where employed.

This judgment resolved conflicting High Court authority on the effect of an unsigned summons and clarified the interpretation of rule 17(3)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court. It confirmed that an issued but unsigned summons is not a nullity and may be condoned under rule 27(3). The decision reinforces a purposive, non-technical approach to procedural rules and promotes access to courts by discouraging overly formalistic objections that impede adjudication on the merits.