South Africa Case Law

Northern Cape Livestock Vryburg Co-op Ltd v Grootbos Voerkrale (Pty) Ltd and Another (1880/2023)

Northern Cape Livestock Vryburg Co-op Ltd v Grootbos Voerkrale (Pty) Ltd and Another (1880/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 117 (14 July 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1880/2023

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal

The High Court upheld an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding the damages pleading too vague to assess, and gave the plaintiffs 20 days to amend.

• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Quantification Of Damages
• Rule 18 Uniform Rules
• Exception Procedure
• Delictual Liability
• Commercial Loss

Roncon CC v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (32406/20)

Roncon CC v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (32406/20) [2025] ZAGPPHC 334 (26 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32406/20

Judge

M J Teffo

The High Court upheld an exception to a damages claim over a municipal tender, finding the particulars of claim failed to plead a sustainable contract or delict case.

• Exception Procedure
• Pleading Requirements
• Municipal Tender Contract
• Repudiation
• Delictual Liability
• Pure Economic Loss

Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v REH Investments (Pty) Ltd (2022/17794)

Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v REH Investments (Pty) Ltd (2022/17794) [2025] ZAGPPHC 56 (27 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/17794

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The court held that the exceptions must fail. Regarding Claim A, the court found that s 347(1A) of the 1973 Companies Act does not restrict the jurisdiction to the court hearing the winding up application, nor does it require a prior finding of abuse before damages can be claimed. The provision is broad and does not specify timing or forum limitations. The plaintiff's claim, based on the alleged wrongful and intentional institution of winding up proceedings for ulterior purposes, falls within the ambit of s 347(1A). Regarding Claim B, the court found that the particulars of claim, read as a w…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Pleadings
• Delictual Liability
• Director Duties
• Fiduciary Duty
• Abuse Of Process
• Winding Up Applications

African Zaibatsu Corporation Ltd and Another v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd (2021/8337)

African Zaibatsu Corporation Ltd and Another v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd (2021/8337) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1012; [2024] 4 All SA 739 (GJ) (7 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/8337

Judge

Siwendu

The Court found that the IDC did not repudiate the loan agreement. The plaintiffs consented to the review and valuation process, and the IDC's conduct in delaying registration of the SNB and communicating a reduced valuation was commercially reasonable and consistent with the terms of the loan agreement, which allowed for review in the event of a material adverse event. The cancellation of the sale agreement by Jasco occurred before the IDC communicated its revised valuation, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that the IDC's conduct was the cause of the cancellation. The damages claimed were…

Source excerpt

• Repudiation Of Contract
• Loan Agreement
• Damages Quantification
• Material Adverse Event
• Competition Approval
• Delictual Liability

President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Tembani and Others (CCT 162/22)

President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Tembani and Others (CCT 162/22) [2024] ZACC 5; 2024 (9) BCLR 1152 (CC); 2025 (2) SA 371 (CC) (6 May 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 162/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Dodson AJ, Kollapen J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, Schippers AJ, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that prescription for the plaintiffs' delictual claims began to run when they had knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt, which was by 21 July 2015 at the latest. The subsequent confirmation of constitutional invalidity by the Court did not delay the completion of the cause of action; the President's conduct was unconstitutional at the time it occurred, not only from the date of the Court's order. The Law Society application and the intervention by certain plaintiffs did not interrupt prescription, as those proceedings did not constitute processes whereby…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Delictual Liability
• International Treaty Obligations
• Condonation Application
• Interruption Of Prescription

Isaac v Minister of Police and Another (HCAA23/2022)

Isaac v Minister of Police and Another (HCAA23/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 41 (26 April 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA23/2022

Judges

LGP Ledwaba, F Kganyago, Diamond

The High Court upheld the appeal, holding that the appellant’s warrantless arrest and detention were unlawful because the alleged domestic violence breach was not a Schedule 1 offence.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Detention Without Warrant
• Domestic Violence Protection Order
• Onus Of Justification
• Constitutional Right To Liberty
• Delictual Liability

Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd (159/2023)

Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd (159/2023) [2024] ZASCA 53; 2025 (2) SA 156 (SCA) (19 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

159/2023

Judges

Mokgohloa, Nicholls, Hughes, Seegobin, Mbhele

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court is determined by the amount claimed in the pleadings at the time the action commences. In this case, the amended claim after apportionment was R398,418.77, which is below the R400,000 threshold for the regional court. The fact that the magistrate may need to consider a higher quantum before applying the apportionment does not oust jurisdiction, as section 37(2) of the Magistrates' Court Act permits the court to make findings beyond its monetary jurisdiction if necessary to decide the matter. The apportionment had…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Monetary Threshold
• Apportionment Of Damages
• Special Plea
• Delictual Liability

Phungwayo v Road Accident Fund (020102-2022)

Phungwayo v Road Accident Fund (020102-2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 223 (27 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

020102/2022

Judge

P.A Van Niekerk

The High Court granted absolution from the instance after the plaintiff failed to prove locus standi, support obligations, and damages in a RAF claim.

• Locus Standi
• Delictual Liability
• Absolution From The Instance
• Quantum Of Damages
• Absolution-from-the-instance
• Locus-standi

Loubser (Snr) N.O and Others v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (11890/2022)

Loubser (Snr) N.O and Others v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (11890/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 33 (9 February 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11890/2022

Judge

Cockrell

The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the requested documents were reasonably required for the exercise or protection of their rights as required by section 50(1)(a) of PAIA. The Trust already knew the identity of the defendant and was able to formulate its claim for holding over and damages without the requested records. The application did not fall within the exceptional circumstances where pre-action discovery under PAIA is permissible, such as identifying the correct defendant or being unable to formulate a claim without the records. The list of requested documents…

Source excerpt

• Pre Action Discovery
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Holding Over
• Unjust Enrichment
• Delictual Liability

Maharaj v Strate (Pty) Ltd and Others (21/48263)

Maharaj v Strate (Pty) Ltd and Others (21/48263) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1095 (26 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/48263

Judge

Turner

The court held that the particulars of claim for Claim A and Claim B, when read in a manner most favourable to the plaintiff, disclose causes of action. The quantification of damages and lack of particularity are matters for trial and do not justify upholding the exception at this stage. The court found that Claim C, which attempts to plead a delictual claim for repudiation of contract, does not disclose a cause of action as South African law does not permit a delictual claim where the negligence alleged is a breach of contract. Regarding Claim D, the court held that section 76(2) and section…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosures Act
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Quantification Of Contractual Damages
• Delictual Liability
• Director Fiduciary Duties
• Companies Act Liability