Amendments to the Rules Regulating Summary Judgments in the High Court and Magistrates Courts

Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court and Rule 14 of the Magistrates Court Rules regulate the conduct of proceedings relating to Summary Judgment applications.

In law, a summary judgment application is a judgment entered in to by a Court against a party summarily, without the matter having proceeded to a full trial.  The aforementioned judgment may be issued on the merits of an entire case.  

Generally, an ordinary trial could take a substantial amount of time to be fully ventilated, as there are various dilatory tactics that opponents could engage in.  Therefore, the party requesting the Summary Judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when, in the Plaintiff's view, the outcome is obvious. Typically this is stated as, when all the evidence likely to be put forward is such that no reasonable Court could disagree with the Plaintiff, summary judgment is appropriate.

Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court was amended on 01 July 2019, and Rule 14 of the Magistrates Court Rules was later amended on 09 March 2020 to align with the Uniform Rules of Court regulating summary judgments.  

The position prior to the amendments, was that  a plaintiff who has instituted a claim based on –

1. A liquid document;

2. for a liquidated amount of money;

3. for the delivery of specified moveable property; or

4. for ejectment could have applied to court for summary judgment against the defendant where the latter had delivered notice of intention to defend.

The Summary Judgment application was required to be delivered within 15 court days after the delivery of the notice of intention to defend. The Plaintiff could then set the application for summary judgement down for hearing on a stated date not being less than 10 court days from the date of delivery thereof.

The latest position is that plaintiffs cannot make an application for summary judgement until such time as the defendants have delivered a plea. Therefore, the proverbial trigger has shifted from delivery of the notice of intention to defend to delivery of the plea which occurs within twenty days after delivery of the notice of intention to defend.

Prior to the amendment, the Plaintiffs were merely delivered to deliver a standard affidavit containing an averment that the Defendants have no bona-fide defence, and that the appearance to defend has been entered solely for the purposes of delay.  

The latest position is that the Plaintiff is now required to verify under oath the following points listed below in its affidavit in support of Summary Judgment:

1) The Cause of Action

2) The amount claimed

3) Identify Any point of law relied upon, and state the facts upon which the Plaintiffs claim is based;

4) Explain why the defences as pleaded, do not raise any issues for trial.  

The plaintiff may  proceed with an application for summary judgment within 15 court days after the delivery of the defendant’s plea and set the application for summary judgement down for hearing on a stated date not being less than 15 court days from the date of delivery thereof, which is a departure from the 10 court days previously granted.

There is much debate on the effectiveness of summary judgment applications post-amendments, as there is now a greater lapse of time in the time-frames within which Plaintiffs may apply for Summary Judgment against a recalcitrant Defendant.

However, there appear to also be various advantages in the Defendant now having to disclose their defence prior to the application, as it avoids the situation where Defendants contradict themselves in their affidavit and their plea.   Further, the Plaintiff is now afforded an opportunity to address these defences and to debunk the Defendants defences by filing an affidavit addressing the defences, which the Plaintiff pre-amendment was precluded from attending to.