Third Party Claim Prescribes After the Sheriff Refuses to Serve a Summons
Author: Mpumelelo Ndlela
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Motloung and Another v The Sheriff, Pretoria East and Others (Case no 1394/18) {2020} ZASCA (“Motloung”), discouraged the conduct of the sheriff in Pretoria East (“the respondent”) for refusing to serve a high court summons, resulting in the prescription of the Appellant’s third party claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF).
By way of background, the Appellant’s attorneys instructed the respondent to serve a summons which was not signed by the registrar, on the RAF. The respondent refused to serve the unsigned summons because it does not comply with the provisions of Uniform Rule 17(3)(c), which provide that a summons “shall” be signed and issued by the registrar. The appellants’ third party claim consequently prescribed and a damages claim was instituted against the respondent for his failure to serve the summons, in the amount the appellants would have been awarded by the RAF. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ claim.
On Appeal, the SCA held that an unsigned summons is a breach which can be condoned by the court under Uniform Rule 27(3), despite not complying with the provisions of Rule 17(3)(c). The use of the word ‘and’ in Rule 17(3)(c), does not imply that issuing and signing of a summons is a single action. In other words, a summons can be signed without it being issued and vice versa.
In Motloung, the summons was issued but not signed by the registrar. The SCA drew a distinction between a failure to sign a summons and a failure to issue a summons, which is a basic component of an action. If a summons is not issued (the process in which the registrar allocates a case number, dates, and stamps the summons) the litigation process is not initiated and as such the failure to issue summons cannot be condoned. However, failure to sign a summons that has been issued is on a different basis because an action has been initiated. The provision of a signature is a peremptory provision which can be condoned and does not necessarily result in nullity.
Prior to the decision in Motloung, there were two conflicting decisions on whether an unsigned summons can be condoned, or it constitute a nullity. In Noord-Kaap Lewendehawe Koöp Beperk v Lombaard 1988 (4) SA 810 (NC) (“Lombaard”), the court held that such a summons could not be condoned, as the summons was a nullity. However, in Chasen v Ritter 1992 (4) SA 323 (SE) (“Chasen”), the court held that such a summons could be condoned. The SCA’s decision means that the conclusion in Chasen is correct.
Therefore, a high court summons which has been issued but not signed by the registrar, in accordance with Uniform Rule 17(3)(c), does not result in a nullity for lack of signature as it can be condoned by the court under Uniform Rule 27(3). The SCA held that it is not for the sheriff to determine whether a summons constitute a nullity, the courts are the ones to make that judgment.

The Road Accident Fund’s exclusion of illegal foreigners
The Road Accident Fund has a statutory obligation in terms of section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act to “ compensate any person (the third party) for any loss or damage which the third party ha...
December 10 2024

WAS THE DECISION BY THE NPA TO REMOVE COUNTERFEIT GOODS MATTERS FROM THE COMMERCIAL CRIMES COURT IN LINE WITH THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE AS SET OUT IN SECTION 34 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
South Africa is a constitutional democracy, which means that it is a country which observes human rights principles and is governed by the rule of law. All decisions taken by State organs must promote...
November 12 2024

A self-sustaining problem: how government’s failure to staff its hospitals adequately increases the risk of medical malpractice in State Hospitals
On 27 September 2024, the High Court in Pretoria held the MEC for Health of the Mpumalanga Provincial Government (“the Defendant”) liable for the injuries a minor child sustained during his birth ...
November 01 2024