087 822 1639
Skip to content 087 822 1639
In a significant civil procedure ruling, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Alexia Kobusch v Wendy Whitehead, delivered on 27th March 2025, clarified the procedural implications of Notices of Bar and Exceptions, while also confirming the standing of lessees to enforce contractual rights.
The case, which revolved around a dispute over a racehorse training agreement, provides important guidance for litigants navigating civil procedure in South Africa, especially in contractual and property-related disputes.
The matter arose from a contractual relationship between the Appellants, Alexia Kobusch, Melissa Kobusch, and Woodmore Manor CC, and the Respondent, Wendy Whitehead, who had been engaged as a trainer for racehorses leased by the first and second Appellants.
Disputes emerged concerning the Agreement that the Appellants initiated legal proceedings. In response, Whitehead raised an Exception to the Appellants’ particulars of claim.
She argued that the pleadings were vague and failed to disclose the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action. However, the procedural manner in which she handled her Exception ultimately led to her downfall in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The SCA was required to determine two primary legal issues: whether the Exception raised by the Respondent was procedurally valid given her status as being under bar, and also whether the Appellants had the necessary legal standing to enforce the Agreement despite not being the registered owners of the horses.
On the procedural front, the SCA delved into the sequence of events and found:
The Summons was served on 25th April 2022, and the Respondent filed a Notice of Intention to Defend on 5th May. According to the rules, her Plea or Exception was due by 2nd June. However, she failed to comply.
As a result, the Appellants served a Notice of Bar on 3rd June, requiring a response by 10th June. The Respondent, on 9th June, served a Rule 23(1)(a) Notice, describing the Particulars of Claim as vague and embarrassing and lacking the necessary averments to support a cause of action.
She also filed a Rule 23(2) Notice to strike out certain portions of the Claim. The formal Exception was only delivered more than a month later, on 13th July 2022.
The High Court found that the Rule 23(1)(a) Notice was filed out of time and thus constituted an irregular step, but it nonetheless entertained and upheld the Exception on the grounds that the Particulars of Claim lacked the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action. The SCA found this approach problematic.
The Supreme Court of Appeal drew an important distinction between two categories of Exceptions under Rule 23(1).
The first, for Pleadings that are vague and embarrassing, requires a Notice under Rule 23(1)(a) before an Exception can be filed.
The second, a so-called “True Exception,” based on the lack of necessary averments to sustain a cause of action, does not require such a Notice. It is itself a Pleading and must be delivered within the prescribed timeframe.
The Court adopted a practical view that where the next procedural step under the rules requires a Notice, as with vague and embarrassing complaints, that Notice can satisfy the requirements of a Notice of Bar under Rule 26.
In such cases, it would be unnecessary to apply to lift the bar before filing the required Notice. However, this leniency does not apply to True Exceptions, which must be filed directly as Pleadings before the expiry of the bar period.
In the present case, Whitehead’s Rule 23(1)(a) Notice was insufficient to interrupt the bar for a True Exception. The SCA held that she was therefore procedurally barred from filing the Exception and should have applied for the bar to be lifted before doing so.
Her failure to take this procedural step meant the High Court had no basis to entertain her Exception.
Although the procedural ruling was decisive, the SCA proceeded to consider the substantive merits of the Exception.
The Respondent had contended that the first and second Appellants lacked standing to sue because they were merely lessees and not the registered owners of the horses.
The Court rejected this argument outright. It reaffirmed that a lessee has the right to possession and control of the leased property and therefore has standing to enforce contractual rights arising from such possession.
The fact that the lessees had contracted directly with the Respondent to train the horses provided a sufficient basis for standing.
Furthermore, the third Appellant, Woodmore Manor CC, the registered owner and breeder of the horses, had also been joined to the proceedings. This ensured that any residual interest related to ownership was adequately represented.
The SCA found that the Respondent’s objection on the basis of standing was without merit.
The Appeal was upheld, and the Order of the High Court was set aside. The SCA substituted it with an Order dismissing the Exception with costs.
The Court found that the Exception should not have been entertained due to procedural non-compliance and, even if it had been, it lacked substantive merit.
The Respondent had indicated her willingness to abide by the decision of the SCA, provided no Cost Order was made against her. However, the Court emphasised the well-established principle that costs follow the result. The Appellants had been forced to approach the SCA to reverse an incorrect High Court decision.
Since the Respondent had not withdrawn the judgment or consented to an Order being set aside, she remained the unsuccessful party and was liable for costs. The Court found no compelling reasons to depart from the ordinary rule on Cost Orders in South Africa.
Although the case is grounded in procedural law, it also affirms a principle relevant to property law, namely that lessees possess enforceable rights over leased items. This principle, while not novel, is vital in contexts where possession and contractual enforcement do not rest solely with registered owners. The case further illustrates the importance of proper party joinder in litigation, as shown by the inclusion of Woodmore Manor CC to represent ownership interests.
The broader significance of the ruling lies in its clarification of the interplay between Rules 23 and 26 of the Uniform Rules of Court. It serves as a warning to litigants and legal practitioners alike: procedural missteps can have fatal consequences for a defence, no matter its substantive strength. The SCA’s practical yet firm approach underscores the need for precision and discipline in civil litigation.
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in Alexia Kobusch and Others v Wendy Whitehead is a noteworthy addition to South Africa’s civil procedure jurisprudence. It reaffirms that adherence to procedural timelines is not a mere formality but a fundamental requirement of fair and efficient litigation.
It also confirms the substantive rights of lessees in contractual disputes and provides guidance on when Exceptions may be entertained. Most significantly, it highlights the importance of proper cost allocation and reinforces the principle that costs generally follow the result.
Litigants must be alert to these rules to avoid unnecessary pitfalls and ensure the orderly progression of their cases through the courts.
Copyright © 2026 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy
BannerText_Seraphinite Accelerator
