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
Norman Luxury Tours (Pty) Ltd v Stalker Hutchingson Admiral (Pty) Ltd (6616/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 104 (30 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a plea in an insurance dispute, holding the plea was not vague or embarrassing and could be answered as pleaded.
Moeketsi v Dikwena Chrome Proprietary Limited ta SAMANCOR (2023/009557) [2025] ZAGPJHC 311 (25 March 2025)
The High Court held that a replication filed after an exception was dismissed was timeous, dismissed the Rule 30 application, and refused condonation.
Stewarts & Lloyds Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Oxy Trading 295 (Pty) Ltd t/a DL Construction and Others (1204/2021) [2025] ZANWHC 19 (3 February 2025)
The High Court upheld an exception to the defendants’ plea, struck it out, and ordered costs after finding the plea vague, contradictory, and non-defensive.
Santam LTD v Pedlar (2022/010346) [2024] ZAGPJHC 756 (31 July 2024)
The court found that the first special plea, although referencing the Protected Disclosures Act and SLAPP suit principles, failed to plead the necessary facts to sustain a defence under the Act. The plea did not allege a protected disclosure as defined by the statute, nor did it make clear how the defendant's conduct fell within the statutory protection. The second and third special pleas were found to be mere lists of grievances and legislative references, without constituting substantive, self-contained defences capable of quashing or delaying the action. The court held that the first speci…
Source excerpt
Compensation Commissioner and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (56219/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 468 (14 May 2024)
The Defendants were only permitted to amend their Plea to raise two types of prescription, as per Ally AJ's previous order. Their attempt to introduce additional issues was impermissible and would unnecessarily burden the court. The proposed Special Plea based on sections 43 and 44 of COIDA was unsustainable, as previous decisions, including one from the Supreme Court of Appeal, have held that these sections do not apply to claims for medical invoices. The Defendants' Special Plea based on the Prescription Act was inadequately pleaded, lacking necessary details to disclose a defence, and thus…
Source excerpt
Industrial Corporation of South Africa v Mara Corporation Limited and Others (2022/035089) [2024] ZAGPJHC 293 (19 March 2024)
The court held that the defendants' plea failed to disclose a valid defence because it did not allege any mistake or misrepresentation as to the terms or obligations of the Guarantee agreement. The representations relied upon by the defendants were not shown to have induced a justifiable error regarding the Guarantee itself. The Guarantee contains clear clauses excluding reliance on any representations not recorded therein. The authorities cited by the defendants, including Ocean Echo and Spenmac, were distinguishable on the facts, as those cases involved errors regarding the subject matter o…
Source excerpt
Compensation Commissioner and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (49156/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 263 (18 March 2024)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against an order upholding exceptions to special pleas of prescription, finding no prospects of success and no compelling reason.
Phoenix International Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Stax of Wodd CC and Another (3651/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 98 (22 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a plea raising economic duress and duress of goods in a dispute over acknowledgements of debt.
Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commission and Others (49156/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 55 (6 February 2024)
The court found that the defendants' first special plea, relying on sections 43 and 44 of COIDA, was bad in law as those provisions do not apply to claims by service providers. This position has been confirmed by both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Gauteng High Court in previous litigation between the parties. The second special plea was found to be defective because it failed to allege the specific dates on which the debts became due, as required for a valid prescription defence. The court held that the process of pleadings recommences after summary judgment proceedings, and the plainti…
Source excerpt
Moeketse v Dikwena Chrome (Pty) Ltd t/a Samancor (009557/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1229 (27 October 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out two paragraphs of a plea, finding the alleged lack of detail did not justify an exception or Rule 30 relief.
Explore more
