Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2013] ZAWCHC 169

ABSA Bank Ltd v Zalvest Twenty (Pty) Ltd and Another (00/0000)

ABSA Bank Ltd v Zalvest Twenty (Pty) Ltd and Another (00/0000) [2013] ZAWCHC 169; 2014 (2) SA 119 (WCC) (6 November 2013)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
4620/13
Judges
Traverso, Rogers

The court held that the defendants' exception was misconceived. Rule 18(6) requires annexing a copy of a written contract to pleadings only where it is possible to do so. Where the contract has been destroyed or lost and no copy can be found despite a diligent search, substantive law allows the plaintiff to prove the contract and its terms by secondary evidence. The inability to annex the contract does not deprive the plaintiff of its cause of action. The rules of court regulate procedure and cannot override substantive law. If condonation for non-compliance is required, it may be granted und…

Source excerpt

  • Rule 18 6 Contract Pleading
  • Mortgage Bond Enforcement
  • Secondary Evidence
  • Condonation Under Rule 27 3
  • Suretyship Liability
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2009] ZAKZPHC 62

Moosa NO and Others v Hassam and Others (12256/08)

Moosa NO and Others v Hassam and Others (12256/08) [2009] ZAKZPHC 62; 2010 (2) SA 410 (KZP) (20 November 2009)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
12256/08
Judge
Swain

The court held that Rule 18(6) requires a party relying on a written contract to annex a true copy of the contract to its pleading. An allegation of non-possession does not constitute compliance with the rule nor does it excuse non-compliance. The respondents failed to seek condonation or provide facts explaining their inability to annex the agreement. Furthermore, evidence suggested that the respondents had received a copy of the agreement but did not annex it. The court concluded that the respondents must remedy the irregularity by annexing the contract within fifteen days, failing which th…

Source excerpt

  • Rule 18 6 Pleading Requirements
  • Irregular Proceedings
  • Written Contracts
  • Condonation Under Rule 27 3
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.