Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Unitrade 1047 (Pty) t/a Isidingo Security Services v Metsimaholo Local Municipality (245/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 190 (24 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a counterclaim, holding the issues had already been finally decided and were barred by res judicata.
Mthombeni v Two Mountains Burial Services (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (3948/2021) [2024] ZALMPPHC 189 (25 November 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. Upon consideration of the grounds of appeal and the arguments presented, the court concluded that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the order upholding the exception and striking out the particulars of claim. The applicant's grounds did not provide a sound or rational basis for success on appeal, and no compelling reasons were demonstrated. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Source excerpt
Cart Blanche Marketing Services (Pty) Ltd v Metal Technics (Pty) Ltd (064154/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 785 (7 August 2024)
The High Court partly upheld an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding insufficient facts for vicarious liability but rejecting vagueness complaints.
Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Limited and Others v United Democratic Movement and Another (Leave to Appeal) (58969/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1943 (14 November 2023)
The High Court granted leave to appeal against its dismissal of an exception, finding reasonable prospects of success and conflicting authority on appealability.
Prime Trade Finance (RF) (PTY) Ltd v Delport and Another (10839/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 449 (28 June 2022)
The court found that Delport failed to provide a satisfactory and verified explanation for the delay in filing the third party notice, as the events cited occurred after the relevant period and were not independently confirmed. Delport did not make out a prima facie case for contribution or indemnity against Gush, as the basis for such claims was not substantiated in contract, statute, or law. The third party notice was excipiable and did not disclose a cause of action. The application to strike out the 'without prejudice' correspondence failed because the letter contained a threat of litigat…
Source excerpt
Tourvest Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission, Trigon Travel (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission (CR209Feb17/EXC134Aug17, CR209Feb17/EXC132Aug17) [2018] ZACT 45 (10 January 2018)
The Tribunal dismissed exceptions to the Competition Commission’s referral, holding that the supplemented facts allowed a reasonable inference of collusive tendering.
SA Gym Group, a universitas personarum, trading as Fit-SA v Discovery Health Medical Scheme and Others (CRP172Nov15/AME067Jul16) [2016] ZACT 121 (16 October 2016)
The Tribunal granted Fit-SA leave to amend its complaint referral, but ordered Fit-SA to pay the fourth and fifth respondents’ costs on a party-and-party scale.
South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes, South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes, South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes; In re: Council for Medical Schemes v South African Paediatric Association and Another; In re: Council for Medical Schemes v Society for Cardiothoracic Surgeons of South Africa and Another (CRP065Jul13/PIL001Apr16, CRP065JUl13/EXC263Mar16, CRP066Jul13/EXC262MAr16, CRP066Jul13/AME023May16, CRP065Jul13/AME022May16) [2016] ZACT 71; [2016] 2 CPLR 1027 (CT) (15 September 2016)
The Tribunal found that SAMA's in limine objections to CMS's competence and the validity of the referrals were without merit. The Competition Act permits any person, including regulatory authorities, to refer complaints, and section 7 of the Medical Schemes Act provides CMS with a broad mandate to protect beneficiaries, which encompasses addressing anti-competitive conduct. The Commission's non-referral remains valid until set aside by review. However, the Tribunal held that CMS's amendment applications, which sought to substitute entire referral affidavits, were irregular and did not adequat…
Source excerpt
Afrocentric Health Limited v Discovery Health Medical Scheme and Others; In re: Afrocentric Healthcare Limited v Discovery Health Medical Scheme and Another (CP003Apr15/Joi120Sep15) [2016] ZACT 70; [2016] 2 CPLR 888 (CT) (15 August 2016)
The Tribunal found that while all proposed respondents have a substantial interest in the outcome, joinder at this stage would be unfair and premature. The exception raised by the first and second respondents regarding the lack of a cause of action must be determined before requiring the proposed respondents to defend a case that may be unclear or excipiable. Joinder is discretionary under CTR 45(1), and the interests of justice require that the exception be resolved first to avoid unnecessary costs and ensure clarity for all parties. The application for joinder is therefore dismissed, but th…
Source excerpt
Invensys PLC and Others v Protea Automaton Solutions (Pty) Limited, In Re: Protea Automaton Solutions (Pty) Limited v Invensys PLC and Others (019315) [2015] ZACT 19 (12 March 2015)
The Tribunal dismissed Protea’s complaint referral because the supplementary affidavit failed to clarify the case and introduced conduct not referred to the Commission.
Explore more
