MATHONSI J: The applicant filed a notice of
intention to bar against the 1st, 3rd, 5th,6th
and 8th Respondents on 16 February 2011 which notice was served on
Joel Pincus Konson and Wolhuter on the same day. The Respondents therefore had until close of
business on 23 February 2011 to file a plea or other answer to the applicant's
claim.
On 23
February 2011, before the dies inducae
had expired, the said Respondents filed an exception to the applicant's summons
and declaration. That notwithstanding,
the applicant purported to bar the Respondents on 24 February 2011. The purported bar was not completed or signed
as the last part of Form 9 was left blank.
The purported bar is invalid by reason that it was
filed after an answer to the claim had already been filed and it is also
defective. Therefore there is no bar
operating against the Respondents.
The
applicant has made an application for an order declaring that the Respondents
are barred and that the exception be dismissed for that reason. There is no merit in the application. Heads of argument for the exception have been
filed and an application for set down made.
The matter is therefore ready for argument and should proceed
accordingly.
In
the result, the application is dismissed with costs.
Joel Pincus, Konson and Wolhuter, 1st, 3rd,5th,6th
and 8th Defendant's Legal Practitioners
Messrs Calderwood, Bryce Hendrie & Partners, 2nd Defendant's Legal
Practitioners
Messrs Sansole and Senda, 4th
Defendant's Legal Practitioners
