South Africa Case Law

Sebata v MEC: Health Gauteng Provincial Government (28974/2016)

Sebata v MEC: Health Gauteng Provincial Government (28974/2016) [2022] ZAGPJHC 287 (5 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28974/2016

Judge

Senyatsi

The court found that the Defendant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing expert notices, primarily due to the change in legal representation and the subsequent appointment of experts. The delay was not deemed unreasonable in the circumstances, and the interests of justice required that both parties be allowed to present expert evidence on the central issue of medical negligence. The court further held that the proposed amendment to the plea was justified by new expert opinion and would not prejudice the Plaintiff, as any inconvenience could be compensated by costs. Accordi…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Amendment Of Plea
• Medical Negligence
• Expert Evidence

Absa Bank Limited v Meiring (3508/2021)

Absa Bank Limited v Meiring (3508/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 31; 2022 (3) SA 449 (WCC) (14 March 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3508/2021

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court held that the Uniform Rules of Court, specifically Rule 22, do not permit the piecemeal delivery of defences. The historical 'Cape practice' of allowing a defendant to deliver only a special plea without pleading over on the merits is no longer permissible, especially in light of the amended summary judgment procedure under Rule 32. The efficient administration of justice requires that all defences be pleaded together, and a defendant who fails to do so must apply for leave to amend and provide a convincing explanation for the omission. The court signaled that, going forward, failur…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Pleading Over
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Special Plea
• Amendment Of Plea

P.H obo S.H v MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (11198/2016)

P.H obo S.H v MEC for Health for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal (11198/2016) [2020] ZAKZDHC 38; 2021 (1) SA 530 (KZD) (31 August 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

11198/2016

Judge

Mngadi

The court granted a Rule 34A interim payment for medical expenses and an advance payment, but refused the State’s bid to amend the plea to raise a public healthcare defence.

• Interim Payment
• Public Healthcare Defence
• Amendment Of Plea
• Development Of Common Law
• Compensation For Personal Injury
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform v Griffo CC (A724/14, 12440/2011)

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform v Griffo CC (A724/14, 12440/2011) [2019] ZAGPPHC 385 (8 August 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A724/14, 12440/2011

Judges

Wright, Mothle, Louw

The High Court reinstated and upheld an appeal, set aside earlier orders striking out a defence and refusing rescission, and allowed an amended plea alleging fraud.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Amendment Of Plea
• Failure To Discover
• Fraud Allegation
• Civil-procedure
• Rescission-of-judgment

Compass Insurance Company Limited v Cobus Smit Projekbestuur CC and Another; C S Property Group (Pty) Ltd v H W Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Another (14667/2014; 9202/2017)

Compass Insurance Company Limited v Cobus Smit Projekbestuur CC and Another; C S Property Group (Pty) Ltd v H W Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Another (14667/2014; 9202/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 114; 2019 (1) SA 413 (WCC) (10 September 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14667/2014; 9202/2017

Judge

Y S Meer

The court found that although a guarantee contract is autonomous and independent, it may reflect the common intention of the insurer, beneficiary, and contractor. The contractor, though not a signatory, was instrumental in the arrangements leading to the guarantee and its terms. The authorities, particularly Dormell Properties and Meyer v Merchant’s Trust, support the principle that rectification is available where the document embodies the common intention of all parties, even if not signed by all. The amendment sought by the Defendants raises a triable issue regarding the rectification of t…

Source excerpt

• Rectification Of Contract
• Performance Guarantee
• Autonomy Of Guarantee
• Triable Issue
• Amendment Of Plea

Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Others v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd (98/101975)

Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Others v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd (98/101975) [2016] ZAGPPHC 465 (8 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

98/101975

Judge

W Louw

The court found that the respondent's attempt to reserve and later introduce further grounds of invalidity constitutes impermissible piecemeal litigation and an abuse of process. The respondent was required to bring its entire case regarding patent validity before the court and cannot now seek to amend its plea to introduce new grounds after the SCA upheld the patent's validity. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied: the applicants have a clear right following the SCA judgment, the balance of convenience favours them as the respondent's product directly competes with theirs…

Source excerpt

• Patent Infringement
• Interim Interdict
• Res Judicata
• Abuse Of Process
• Amendment Of Plea