South Africa Case Law

Fourie N.O and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (1425/2020;1426/2020;1427/2020;1428/2020)

Fourie N.O and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (1425/2020;1426/2020;1427/2020;1428/2020) [2022] ZANCHC 20 (8 April 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1425/2020;1426/2020;1427/2020;1428/2020

Judge

Lever

The court found that there was substantial compliance with Rule 18(1) as the attorneys who signed the Particulars of Claim possessed the requisite rights of appearance, and any confusion was cured by explanation in the answering affidavit. However, the respondent failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not annexing the actual written contract of cession or relevant extracts to the Particulars of Claim, which is a mandatory requirement when the contract forms a link in the chain of the cause of action. The annexed 'RECORDAL' document did not satisfy this requirement. The respondent's application f…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Rule 18 Compliance
• Irregular Proceedings
• Pleading Requirements
• Contract Cession

Suid-Afrikaanse Stamboek- en Veeverbeteringsvereniging v State Information Technology Agency (Edms) Bpk (3557/2005)

Suid-Afrikaanse Stamboek- en Veeverbeteringsvereniging v State Information Technology Agency (Edms) Bpk (3557/2005) [2006] ZAFSHC 138 (9 February 2006)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3557/2005

Judge

M.H. Rampai

High Court application to compel further particulars succeeded after the respondent’s pleading and answers were found incomplete and too vague for trial preparation.

• Further Particulars
• Pleading Requirements
• Contract Cession
• Rule 18 Uniform Rules
• Quantification Of Claim
• Further-particulars